arXiv:astro-ph/9708102v2 25 Sep 1997
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS: A REVIEW
A. J. S. HAMILTON
JILA & Dept. of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences
Box 440, U. Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA;
[email protected];
http://casa.colorado.edu/∼ajsh
Invited review to appear in Hamilton, D. (ed.) Ringberg Workshop on LargeScale Structure, held at Ringberg Castle, Germany, 23–28 September 1996,
Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
Abstract. Redshift maps of galaxies in the Universe are distorted by the
peculiar velocities of galaxies along the line of sight. The amplitude of
the distortions on large, linear scales yields a measurement of the linear
redshift distortion parameter, which is β ≈ Ω0.6
0 /b in standard cosmology
with cosmological density Ω0 and light-to-mass bias b. All measurements of
β from linear redshift distortions published up to mid 1997 are reviewed.
The average and standard deviation of the reported values is βoptical =
0.52 ± 0.26 for optically selected galaxies, and βIRAS = 0.77 ± 0.22 for
IRAS selected galaxies. The implied relative bias is boptical /bIRAS ≈ 1.5. If
optical galaxies are unbiased, then Ω0 = 0.33+0.32
−0.22 , while if IRAS galaxies
are unbiased, then Ω0 = 0.63+0.35
.
−0.27
1. Introduction
The organisers of this thoroughly enjoyable workshop asked me to write
a review of redshift distortions aimed primarily at graduate students and
others who are not familiar with the field. The review aims at fairly thorough coverage (up to mid 1997) within a rather limited scope: the subject
of redshift distortions in the large scale, linear regime. The review does not
attempt to cover the large body of work involving the direct measurement
of peculiar velocities. The latter has been the subject of recent compre-
2
A. J. S. HAMILTON
hensive reviews by Strauss & Willick (1995), and by Dekel (1994). Both of
those reviews included sections on redshift distortions. Nor does the present
review cover nonlinear redshift distortions, except insofar as they affect linear redshift distortions. For an entry to the literature on nonlinear redshift
distortions, try Davis, Miller & White (1997).
Hubble’s (1929) law states that the recession velocity cz of a galaxy is
proportional to its distance d
cz = H0 d ,
(1.1)
with constant of proportionality the Hubble constant H0 (the subscript 0
signifies its present day value). The recession velocity cz of a galaxy can
be measured from the redshift z of its spectrum (c is the speed of light),
a great deal more easily and accurately than its true distance d. This has
been a primary motivation for redshift surveys (see e.g. Strauss 1997 for a
recent review), which map the Universe in 3 dimensions using the recession
velocity cz of each galaxy as a measure of its distance.
Hubble’s law is not perfect, however. Galaxies have peculiar velocities v
relative to the general Hubble expansion. Thus it is necessary in general to
distinguish between a galaxy’s redshift distance s (conveniently expressed
in velocity units)
s ≡ cz
(1.2)
and its true distance r (also conveniently expressed in velocity units)
r ≡ H0 d .
(1.3)
The redshift distance s of a galaxy differs from the true distance r by its
peculiar velocity v ≡ r̂.v along the line of sight:
s=r+v .
(1.4)
The peculiar velocities of galaxies thus cause them to appear displaced
along the line of sight in redshift space. These displacements lead to redshift distortions in the pattern of clustering of galaxies in redshift space.
Although such distortions complicate the interpretation of redshift maps
as positional maps, they have the tremendous advantage of bearing information about the dynamics of galaxies. In particular, the amplitude of
distortions on large scales yields a measure of the linear redshift distortion parameter β, which is related to the cosmological density Ω0 ,
the present day ratio of the matter density of the Universe to the critical
density required to close it, by (see §4.1)
β=
Ω0.6
f (Ω0 )
≈ 0
b
b
(1.5)
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
3
in standard pressureless Friedmann cosmology with light-to-mass bias b.
The goal of much of the current work on redshift distortions is to measure the linear distortion parameter β, and perhaps, pious hope, if bias
can be quantified through nonlinear effects or otherwise, to determine the
cosmological density Ω0 itself.
1.1. PLAN
The plan of this paper is as follows.
Section 2 attempts to convey visually what redshift distortions look like
and why, both §2.1 schematically, and §2.2 observationally.
Section 3 is about power spectra. Sections 3.1 and 3.2 contains definitions, needed for subsequent reference, of correlation functions and power
spectra in real and redshift space. Section 3.3 advertises the delights of
Hilbert space. Section 3.4 explains why power spectra are better.
Section 4 presents the theory of redshift distortions in the linear regime.
The first part, §4.1, explores what β, the linear redshift distortion parameter, really means. The second part, §4.2, derives the linear redshift distortion operator, which transforms real space into redshift space, for fluctuations in the linear regime. The third and fourth parts, §§4.3 and 4.4, cover
two small but important details, the peculiar motion of us, the observers,
and the difference between the selection functions in real and redshift space.
Section 5 describes the three different types of method that have been
used to date to measure β from linear redshift distortions: §5.1, the ratio
of real to redshift angle-averaged power; §5.2, the ratio of quadrupole-tomonopole harmonics of the redshift power spectrum; and §5.3, the maximum likelihood approach.
Section 6 interjects an example of measuring β from linear redshift distortions, partly as an illustration, partly to bring out the difference between
optical and IRAS -selected galaxies, and partly to demonstrate the importance of nonlinearities.
Section 7 describes the two methods that have been used to date to
deal with nonlinearity: §7.2, a model in which linear redshift distortions
are modulated by a random velocity dispersion; and §7.3, the Zel’dovich
approximation.
Section 8 compiles measurements of β from linear redshift distortions,
complete up to the first half of 1997. Section 8.1 summarizes the measurements of β in a Table, and gives the average and standard deviation of
the measurements, which results are the ones quoted in the abstract. Section 8.2 offers commentary on all the individual measurements. I apologize
to authors whose work has been inadvertently omitted, or inadequately
portrayed.
4
A. J. S. HAMILTON
Figure 1. A spherical overdensity appears distorted by peculiar velocities when observed
in redshift space. On large (linear) scales the overdensity appears squashed along the line
of sight, while on small (nonlinear) scales fingers-of-god appear. At left, the overdensity
is far from the observer (who is looking upward from somewhere way below the bottom of
the diagram), and the distortions are effectively plane-parallel. At right, the overdensity
is near the observer (large dot), and the large scale distortions appear kidney-shaped,
while the finger-of-god is sharpened on the end pointing at the observer. The observer
shares the infall motion towards the overdensity. A similar diagram appears in Kaiser
(1987).
Finally, §9 discourses briefly on cosmological redshift distortions, which
arise from differences in the geometry of the Universe perceptible at high
enough redshift.
The greater part of this review is just that, a review; but there are some
new things here and there. The expression for the linear redshift distortion
operator Ss LG for the practical case where (a) the redshift overdensity
is measured in the Local Group frame, and (b) the selection function is
measured in redshift space, also in the Local Group frame, appears here
explicitly for the first time, equation (4.81). The analysis of the StromloAPM survey reported in §6 has not been published elsewhere.
2. What Redshift Distortions Look Like
2.1. SCHEMATICALLY
Figure 1 illustrates how a spherical overdensity appears distorted by peculiar velocities along the line of sight, when observed in redshift space. The
initial spherical overdensity perturbation here was taken to be a power law
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
Real space:
5
Redshift space:
Squashing effect
Linear regime
Collapsed
Turnaround
Collapsing
Finger-of-god
Figure 2. Detail of how peculiar velocities lead to the redshift distortions illustrated in
Figure 1. The dots are ‘galaxies’ undergoing infall towards a spherical overdensity, and
the arrows represent their peculiar velocities. At large scales, the peculiar velocity of an
infalling shell is small compared to its radius, and the shell appears squashed. At smaller
scales, not only is the radius of a shell smaller, but also its peculiar infall velocity tends
to be larger. The shell that is just at turnaround, its peculiar velocity just cancelling
the general Hubble expansion, appears collapsed to a single velocity in redshift space. At
yet smaller scales, shells that are collapsing in proper coordinates appear inside out in
redshift space. The combination of collapsing shells with previously collapsed, virialized
shells, gives rise to fingers-of-god.
with radius, δ ∝ r −1 , located in an expanding Universe with critical mean
density, Ω = 1. The free-fall gravitational collapse of such a spherical pressureless overdensity can be computed analytically (Peebles 1980, §18). The
dots (galaxies) started out uniformly distributed in the initial conditions,
being uniformly placed around a series of uniformly spaced concentric shells.
Thus the density of dots in Figure 1 indicates the density of galaxies in the
collapsing overdensity, as observed in redshift space. Figure 1 omits shells
that have collapsed to less than half their radius at turnaround, which shells
may be expected to scatter off previously collapsed shells, and to virialize.
Figure 2 shows how peculiar velocities produce the pattern illustrated
in Figure 1. On large scales, peculiar infall towards the overdensity causes
it to appear squashed along the line of sight. The squashing increases to
6
A. J. S. HAMILTON
smaller scales down to the point of turnaround, where the peculiar infall
velocity exactly cancels the general Hubble expansion. In the turnaround
shell, the near and far parts of the shell appear collapsed to a single radial
velocity in redshift space. At smaller scales, shells that have turned around
and are collapsing in real space appear turned ‘inside out’ in redshift space.
At even smaller scales (not shown in Figures 1 or 2), collapsed shells are
expected to virialize. The combination of collapsing and virialized regions
of galaxy clusters gives rise to fingers-of-god.
2.2. OBSERVATIONALLY
Fingers-of-god are well-known features of redshift surveys. Prominent examples are the fingers-of-god in the Coma cluster (de Lapparent, Geller &
Huchra 1986) and the Perseus cluster (Wegner, Haynes & Giovanelli 1993,
Figs. 7–10).
The envelope of the finger-of-god in Figure 1 forms a caustic, a surface of
infinite density (but finite mass). Such caustics are not obviously seen in real
fingers-of-god (Regős & Geller 1989); presumably the caustics are smeared
out by subclustering. The structure of the well-studied Coma cluster, for
example, is quite complicated (Colless & Dunn 1996).
Visually, the large scale squashing effect is more subtle to discern in real
data. Are prominent transverse structures such as the Great Wall (Ramella,
Geller & Huchra 1992) enhanced by redshift distortions? Probably yes, at
some level (e.g. Praton, Melott & McKee 1997). However, Dell’Antonio,
Geller & Bothun (1996) conclude from their analysis of the peculiar velocity
−1
field of the Great Wall that any infall is small, <
∼ 150 km s .
The large scale squashing effect can however be detected statistically,
from the distortion of the redshift space correlation function ξ s , or of its
Fourier transform the redshift space power spectrum P s . These quantities
are defined formally in the next section, §3. Physically, the redshift correlation function ξ s (s// , s⊥ ) is the mean fractional excess of galaxy neighbours
of a galaxy at separations s// and s⊥ parallel and perpendicular to the line
of sight, a definition that suffices to understand Figure 3.
Figure 3 shows redshift space correlation functions ξ s (s// , s⊥ ) measured
from two sets of redshift surveys, one (QDOT + 1.2 Jy) selected in the
infrared, the other (Stromlo-APM) in the optical. The infrared survey is a
merger of two Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS ) redshift surveys, the
QDOT survey, and the 1.2 Jy survey. The revised QDOT survey (Lawrence
et al. 1997, in preparation) is a redshift survey of a 1-in-6 subset of galaxies
brighter than 0.6 Jy from the IRAS Point Source Catalog (PSC). It contains 2376 galaxies over 9.29365 steradians, covering most of the sky above
galactic latitude |b| > 10◦ . The IRAS 1.2 Jy survey (Fisher et al. 1995a;
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
7
Figure 3. Contour plots of the redshift space two-point correlation function ξ s as a
function of separations s// and s⊥ parallel and perpendicular to the line of sight in: (left)
the IRAS QDOT and 1.2 Jy redshift surveys, merged over the angular region of the sky
common to both surveys; and (right) the optical Stromlo-APM survey. In each case the
region within 25h−1 Mpc of the Milky Way has been excluded, so as to eliminate bias
from the local overdensity. A near minimum variance pair weighting has been applied. The
thick contour signifies ξ s = 0, and other contours are logarithmically spaced at intervals
of 0.5 dex above 10−1.5 (the left panel also shows one negative contour, at −10−1.5 ).
Shading is graduated at intervals of 0.1 dex above 10−1.5 . The correlation function here
has been smoothed over pair separation s = (s2⊥ + s/2/ )1/2 with a tophat window of width
0.2 dex, and over angles θ = tan−1 (s⊥ /s// ) to the line of sight with a Gaussian window
with a 1σ width of 10◦ .
Strauss et al. 1992a) is a complete redshift survey of galaxies brighter than
1.2 Jy from the same IRAS PSC. It contains 5321 galaxies over 11.02577
steradians, covering most of the sky above galactic latitude |b| > 5◦ . For
Figure 3, the surveys were merged over the part of the sky common to
both surveys, yielding 5752 galaxies over 9.26740 steradians. Removing the
region closer than 25 h−1 Mpc, to avoid local bias (Hamilton & Culhane
1996, §2.1) left 4826 galaxies. The optical survey is the Stromlo-APM survey (Loveday et al. 1996b), which is a redshift survey of a 1-in-20 subset of
galaxies brighter bJ = 17.15 from the Automatic Plate Measuring (APM)
survey (Maddox et al. 1990a,b, 1996). The Stromlo-APM redshift survey
contains 1790 galaxies over 1.32467 steradians centred roughly around the
South Galactic Pole. Eliminating the region closer than 25 h−1 Mpc left 1725
galaxies.
To ensure the validity of the plane-parallel approximation, the redshift
8
A. J. S. HAMILTON
correlation function shown in Figure 3 was computed including only pairs
closer than 50◦ on the sky, the line of sight to each pair being defined as the
bisector (the angular midpoint on the sky) of the pair. A near minimum
variance pair weighting was applied as described by Hamilton (1993b, §5,
eqs. [60] & [61]). Further details of the procedure used here to calculate
ξ s (s// , s⊥ ) are given in the latter paper.
Figure 3 shows clearly the expected large scale squashing effect, while
fingers-of-god show up as an enhancement of the redshift correlation function along the line-of-sight axis. Besides these two expected effects, two
other features are apparent. Firstly, the redshift correlation function of the
optically selected galaxies is roughly a factor of 2 higher than that of the
IRAS selected galaxies. Secondly, the fingers-of-god are longer and more
prominent in the optical galaxies. Both these features can be attributed
to the fact that IRAS galaxies, which are dusty, gas-rich spirals, avoid the
centres of rich clusters of galaxies, where ellipticals rule.
A contour plot of the redshift space power spectrum from an N -body
simulation can be found in Cole, Fisher & Weinberg (1994, Fig. 1), while
Bromley, Warren & Zurek (1997, Fig. 1) show plots of the redshift space
power spectrum as a function of θ = tan−1 (k⊥ /k// ) from two large (17
million particle) high resolution simulations.
3. Correlation Functions and Power Spectra
Sections 3.1 and 3.2 collect standard definitions of correlation functions and
power spectra, in real and redshift space respectively, needed elsewhere
in this review. Compared to theoretical correlation functions, defined in
§§3.1.1 and 3.2.1, observed correlation functions contain additional noise,
the dominant contribution to which is often taken to be Poisson sampling
noise, also known as shot noise, discussed in §§3.1.2 and 3.2.2. I adhere
throughout this review to what has become the standard convention in the
field of galaxy clustering for defining Fourier transforms, notwithstanding
the extraneous factors of 2π that result.
Section 3.3 points out how Hilbert space provides a compact, powerful
notation.
Section 3.4 explains what makes power spectra special.
3.1. REAL SPACE
A fundamental proposition is that the three dimensional distribution of
matter in the Universe constitutes a statistically homogeneous and isotropic
random density field. This proposition, a reflection of the proposition that
the Universe at large is homogeneous and isotropic — Milne’s 1933 Cosmological Principle (see Peebles 1980, §3B) — is powerfully evidenced by the
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
9
isotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background (Bennett et al. 1996; Górski
1997).
The statistical properties of such a field are completely determined by its
irreducible moments, or correlation functions as they are commonly called
in the discipline of large scale structure (Peebles 1980, Ch. III). The first
two irreducible moments are the mean, a constant, and the covariance, or
2-point correlation function, a function of separation.
In the case of a multivariate Gaussian random field, for which by definition the third and all higher correlation functions vanish, the mean and
2-point correlation function completely specify the statistical properties of
the field. If fluctuations generated in the early Universe were the result
of a superposition of many independent random processes, as for example quantum fluctuations during inflation, then the Central Limit Theorem
guarantees that the fluctuations will form a multivariate Gaussian. Fluctuations on large, linear scales today would then also be Gaussian. Available
observational evidence is consistent with fluctuations being Gaussian on
linear scales (Stirling & Peacock 1996; Kogut et al. 1996).
Once density fluctuations grow large, they cannot remain Gaussian,
since density must remain positive. Thus on small, nonlinear scales the third
and higher order correlation functions must be non-vanishing. Nonetheless
the covariance, the 2-point correlation function, is well-defined in the nonlinear regime, and remains a statistic of fundamental importance.
3.1.1. The True Density Field of the Universe
Let ρ(r) denote the density of matter at (real, not redshift) position r in
the Universe, and let ρ̄, a constant in space, denote the mean density. The
density ρ(r) may be regarded as the density of mass, or of particles, or of
galaxies, or of some particular set of objects one is interested in. Whatever
the case, the density ρ(r) signifies the true density, not the observed density of objects that may be recorded in a real survey (which is considered
in §§3.1.2 and 3.2 following), and r is the true position, not the redshift
position. The true overdensity δ(r) at position r is defined by
δ(r) ≡
ρ(r) − ρ̄
.
ρ̄
(3.1)
It is to be noted that although δ(r) is defined to be the ‘true’ overdensity, it is nevertheless a hypothetical quantity, to be distinguished from a
quantity, such as the redshift, angular position, or flux of a galaxy, which
is directly observed. This is the usual situation in statistics, where one
imagines a hypothetical ‘true’ population from which observed data are
drawn. The properties of statistical homogeneity and isotropy attributed
to the ‘true’ density field are likewise theoretical hypotheses, whose validity
10
A. J. S. HAMILTON
can be tested against observed data, though never proven absolutely. The
distinction between observed data and theoretical models thereof appears
starkly in the maximum likelihood procedure, §5.3.
The most basic statistic that can be constructed from the overdensity
(the mean having been subtracted off) is its variance, its second irreducible
moment, the correlation function ξ(r12 ) (also known as the 2-point correlation function, or 2-point function, or covariance function, or autocovariance function),
ξ(r12 ) ≡ hδ(r 1 )δ(r 2 )i .
(3.2)
Equation (3.2) states that the expectation value of the product of overdensities at a pair of randomly positioned points separated by r12 in the Universe
is ξ(r12 ). More physically, the correlation function ξ(r12 ) is the mean overdensity of neighbours around a random particle (galaxy) (Peebles 1980,
§31). The assumption that the density field is statistically homogeneous
and isotropic means that the correlation function ξ(r12 ) is a function only
of the scalar separation r12 ≡ |r 1 − r2 | of the points r 1 and r 2 , not of their
overall location or orientation.
The Fourier transform of the overdensity defines the Fourier modes δ̂(k)
at wavevector k (hats denote Fourier transforms throughout this review)
δ̂(k) ≡
Z
ik .r
e
3
δ(r) d r ,
δ(r) =
Z
e−ik.r δ̂(k) d3 k/(2π)3 .
(3.3)
The power spectrum is by definition the covariance of Fourier modes,
which from the definitions (3.3) and (3.2) is equal to the Fourier transform
of the correlation function
hδ̂(k1 ) δ̂(k2 )i =
Z
eik1 .r1 +ik2 .r 2 ξ(r12 ) d3 r1 d3 r2 .
(3.4)
Since the correlation function ξ(r12 ) is a function only of separation, equation (3.4) reduces to1
hδ̂(k1 ) δ̂(k2 )i = (2π)3 δD (k1 + k2 )P (k1 ) ,
(3.5)
where P (k) is also called the power spectrum,
P (k) ≡
Z
ik .r
e
3
ξ(r) d r ,
ξ(r) =
Z
e−ik.r P (k) d3 k/(2π)3 .
(3.6)
1
It is also fine to define the power spectrum as the covariance of modes
with one of the modes taken to be the complex conjugate, in which case
hδ̂(k1 )δ̂ ∗ (k2 )i = (2π)3 δD (k1 − k2 )P (k1 ). The equivalence of the two definitions is made
clear in §3.3. The advantage of the symmetric choice (3.5) becomes more apparent
when dealing with higher order correlation functions, such as the 3-point function
hδ̂(k1 )δ̂(k2 )δ̂(k 3 )i.
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
11
The ‘momentum-conserving’ 3-dimensional Dirac delta function δD (k1 +k2 )
in equation (3.5) expresses the assumed translation invariance, i.e. statistical homogeneity, of clustering, while the fact that P (k) is a function only
of the absolute value k of the wavevector k expresses statistical isotropy.
It is useful also to give here results in spherical transform space, in which
the density field is expanded in spherical harmonics about the observer. Let
δℓm (r) denote spherical modes in real space
δℓm (r) ≡
Z
Yℓm (r̂)δ(r) dor ,
δ(r) =
X
∗
Yℓm
(r̂)δℓm (r)
(3.7)
ℓm
(dor denotes an interval of solid angle in real space) and similarly let δ̂ℓm (k)
denote spherical modes in Fourier space
δ̂ℓm (k) ≡
Z
Yℓm (k̂)δ̂(k) dok ,
δ̂(k) =
X
∗
(k̂)δ̂ℓm (k)
Yℓm
(3.8)
ℓm
(dok denotes an interval of solid angle in Fourier space) where Yℓm are the
usual orthonormal spherical harmonics. The spherical transforms in real
and Fourier space are related by
δ̂ℓm (k) = iℓ 4π
Z
−ℓ
δℓm (r) = i 4π
∞
0
Z
jℓ (kr)δℓm (r) r 2 dr ,
∞
0
jℓ (kr)δ̂ℓm (k) k2 dk/(2π)3
(3.9)
where jℓ (kr) are spherical Bessel functions. The reality conditions δ∗ (r) =
∗
δ(r), hence δ̂∗ (k) = δ̂(−k), along with the usual properties Yℓm
=
m
ℓ
(−) Yℓ,−m and Yℓm (−k̂) = (−) Yℓm (k̂) of the spherical harmonics, imply
∗
δℓm
(r) = (−)m δℓ,−m (r) ,
∗
δ̂ℓm
(k) = (−)ℓ+m δ̂ℓ,−m (k) .
(3.10)
The correlation function of spherical modes in real space is
K
hδℓ1 m1 (r1 )δℓ2 m2 (r2 )i = (−)m1 δℓK1 ℓ2 δm
ξ (r1 , r2 )
1 ,−m2 ℓ
(3.11)
where δK is the Kronecker delta, and the reduced correlation function
ξℓ (r1 , r2 ) is related to the power spectrum P (k) by
ξℓ (r1 , r2 ) = (4π)2
Z
0
∞
jℓ (kr1 )jℓ (kr2 )P (k) k2 dk/(2π)3 .
(3.12)
The extraneous minus signs in (3.11), and also in the next equation (3.13),
disappear if one takes the complex conjugate on one of the overdensities,
12
A. J. S. HAMILTON
as in hδ δ∗ i in place of hδ δi; see §3.3 for clarification of this point. The
correlation function of spherical modes in Fourier space is
K
hδ̂ℓ1 m1 (k1 ) δ̂ℓ2 m2 (k2 )i = (−)ℓ1 +m1 δℓK1 ℓ2 δm
(2π)3 δD (k1 −k2 )k1−2 P (k1 )
1 ,−m2
(3.13)
Rwhere δD (k1 − k2 ) is the 1-dimensional Dirac delta-function, satisfying
δD (k)dk = 1 integrated over any interval containing the origin k = 0. As
explained in §3.3, the expression in front of P (k1 ) on the right hand side of
equation (3.13) is just the unit matrix in kℓm-space, equation (3.42).
3.1.2. The Observed Density Field and Shot Noise
Real surveys probe only a portion of the density field of the Universe,
and what they do survey is liable to be an imperfect representation of the
true density field. This subsection discusses what is often assumed to be
the dominant source of noise in a survey, which is Poisson sampling noise,
often also called shot noise. It is assumed in this subsection that the data
lie in real space, not redshift space. Corresponding results in redshift space
are given in §3.2.2.
Typically, a galaxy survey does not include all galaxies in a region of
space, but only, say, those brighter than some flux limit. Thus a survey
generally blends a finer sampling of dim galaxies nearby with a sparser
sampling of luminous galaxies farther away. A survey is characterized by its
selection function n̄(r), which is the expected mean number of galaxies
at position r given the selection criteria (e.g. the flux limit) of the survey.
The selection function n̄(r) of a survey must be measured from it. The
problem of measuring the selection function of a survey is reviewed by
Binggeli, Sandage & Tammann (1988), and is discussed further in §4.4.
Some additional comments on the measurement of the selection function
appear in the maximum likelihood section, §5.3, in the paragraph following
equation (5.18).
In order to combine heterogeneously sampled regions, the (testable) hypothesis is commonly made that the galaxies observed are drawn randomly
from a hypothetical continuous underlying population of galaxies. The observed galaxies then form a Poisson process on the underlying population,
and the selection function n̄(r) is interpreted as specifying the probability
(in units of number of galaxies per unit volume) of including a galaxy at
position r into the survey.
Let n(r) denote the observed number density of galaxies at (real, not
redshifted) position r in a survey. The number density n(r) is a sum of delta
functions, since galaxies come as discrete units. The observed galaxy
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
13
overdensity δobs (r) is then defined by
δobs (r) ≡
n(r) − n̄(r)
.
n̄(r)
(3.14)
In the Poisson process model, the observed galaxy overdensity δobs (r) provides a discretized but unbiased estimate of the true overdensity δ(r), equation (3.1). The subscript obs is retained throughout this section 3 to distinguish the estimate δobs from the hypothesized true value δ, but is dropped
from most of this review to avoid an overly ponderous notation (correctly,
estimated values not only of δ but also of all other measured quantities
should be distinguished from their ‘true’ values). It should be clear from
the context whether what is meant is the theoretical ‘true’ value of a quantity, or an observational estimate thereof (the theoretical sections 4, 5, and
7 refer largely to theoretical quantities, while the observational sections 6
and 8 report mainly estimates thereof).
In the Poisson process model, the expectation value C(r 1 , r 2 ) of the
covariance of observed overdensities is a sum of the true correlation function
ξ(r12 ) with a Poisson sampling noise, or shot noise, term:
hδobs (r 1 )δobs (r 2 )i ≡ C(r 1 , r 2 ) = ξ(r12 ) + δD (r 1 − r 2 )[n̄(r 1 )]−1 .
(3.15)
The form δD (r 1 − r 2 )[n̄(r 1 )]−1 of the Poisson sampling
term can be derived
R
3
3
n(r
from
the
following
argument.
First,
note
that
1 )n(r 2 )d r1 d r2 =
V
R
3
V n(r 1 )d r1 = 0 or 1 when the integration is over an infinitesimal volume
V , which either does not (0) or does (1) contain a galaxy. It follows that
the expectation value of the product of densities in the same infinitesimal
volume element is hn(r 1 )n(r 2 )i = δD (r 1 − r 2 )hn(r 1 )i = δD (r 1 − r 2 )n̄(r 1 ),
whence hδobs (r 1 )δobs (r 2 )i = δD (r 1 − r 2 )[n̄(r 1 )]−1 , which is the shot noise
term of equation (3.15) as claimed. The Poisson sampling term reflects the
fact that the probability of finding yourself as a neighbour at zero separation is unity. The shot noise becomes infinite in regions outside a survey
where the selection function is zero, which makes sense.
Equation (3.15) shows that, in the Poisson process model, the expectation value of the survey covariance is equal to the true correlation function
at any finite separation
C(r 1 , r 2 )r 1 6=r 2 = ξ(r12 ) .
(3.16)
Thus any average hδobs (r 1 )δobs (r 2 )i of products of pairs of overdensities
at any finite separation r12 ≡ |r 1 − r 2 | =
6 0, weighted in any arbitrary a
priori fashion, provides an unbiased estimate of the true correlation function
ξ(r12 ).
14
A. J. S. HAMILTON
In estimating the correlation function from a survey, the shot noise
contribution can be eliminated by excluding from the computation all selfpairs of galaxies (pairs consisting of a galaxy and itself). Alternatively, it
may be convenient to include self-pairs, and to subtract off the shot noise
as a separate step.
3.2. REDSHIFT SPACE
Redshift space quantities (distinguished in this review by a superscript
s) are defined analogously to real space quantities. Let ns (s) denote the
observed number density of galaxies at redshift position s in a redshift
survey (the observer is at the origin s = 0).
A slightly subtle point in the definition of overdensity δs (s) in redshift
space arises because, as emphasized by Fisher, Scharf & Lahav (1994), the
apparent brightness of a galaxy depends on its true distance r, not its
redshift distance s, so that the selection function of a flux-limited redshift
survey is correctly a function n̄(r) in real space, not redshift space. This
suggests that one might define the observed overdensity in redshift space
s (s) ≡ [ns (s) − n̄(r)]/n̄(r). This is possible, but it requires knowing
by δobs
not only the true selection function n̄(r) in real space, but also the true
distance r to each galaxy, which involves carrying out a full reconstruction
of the deredshifted density field (Yahil et al. 1991; Fisher et al. 1995b;
Webster, Lahav & Fisher 1997), whereupon one might as well work with
the overdensity δobs (r) in real space.
There remain two alternative possibilities for defining the redshift overdensity. The first option is to define the observed redshift space galaxy
s (s) at redshift position s relative to the real space selection
overdensity δobs
function n̄(s) evaluated at the same redshift position s
s
δobs
(s) ≡
ns (s) − n̄(s)
.
n̄(s)
(3.17)
This is the definition adopted by Kaiser (1987), and also adopted in §4.2.
A drawback of the definition (3.17) is that it can be tricky to estimate
the real space selection function n̄(s) from a redshift survey, whereas it is
relatively straightforward to estimate the redshift space selection function
n̄s (s) (see footnote2 ). Thus a second possibility is to define the observed
ss (s) [with a double ss superscript to distinredshift space overdensity δobs
s
guish it from δobs (s)] relative to the redshift space selection function n̄s (s)
ss
δobs
(s) ≡
ns (s) − n̄s (s)
.
n̄s (s)
(3.18)
2
Hamilton & Culhane (1996) claim that the real and redshift selection functions agree
to linear order, but this is false. See the paragraph just before §4.4.1.
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
15
The relation between the real and redshift space selection functions
n̄(s) and n̄s (s), and the consequent relation between the redshift space
overdensities δs (s) and δss (s), is discussed in §4.4.
3.2.1. The True Density Field in Redshift Space
As in real space, in redshift space it is necessary to distinguish between the
s (s), equation (3.17), and the hypothetical
observed redshift overdensity δobs
s
‘true’ redshift overdensity δ (s) whose existence is predicted theoretically.
For fluctuations in the linear regime, the theoretical prediction is that the
true redshift overdensity δs (s) is related to the true unredshifted overdensity δ(r) by equation (4.22), derived in §4.2. Similarly, corresponding to
ss (s), equation (3.18), is a hypothetical
the observed redshift overdensity δobs
ss
‘true’ redshift overdensity δ (s) predicted by equation (4.73). Corresponding predictions for the redshift overdensities δs LG and δss LG measured in
the Local Group frame instead of the Cosmic Microwave Background frame
are given by equations (4.45) and (4.79). The definitions in this subsection
remain valid for all the various flavours of the redshift overdensity: just
change the superscripts appropriately.
Unlike the true overdensity δ(r) in real space, which is defined independent of the selection function of the survey, the true overdensity δs (s) in
redshift space depends on the selection function. This is fine, except that
an ambiguity arises for regions outside the survey, where the selection function is zero. Specifically, the true redshift overdensity δs (s) depends on the
selection function n̄(r) through the quantity α(r) ≡ ∂ ln r 2 n̄(r)/∂ ln r in
the redshift distortion operator (4.23). The quantity α(r) is zero divided
by zero outside the survey, where the selection function is zero, so is ambiguous.
Two comments can be made about this ambiguity in the definition of the
true redshift overdensity δs (s) outside the survey. Firstly, one can choose to
resolve the ambiguity in whatever manner is convenient, and this choice has
no effect whatsoever on the comparison between theory and observation.
This is because the ambiguity in α(r) occurs only at points outside the
survey, whereas comparison between theory and observation is made only
at points inside the survey. A convenient choice in a flux-limited survey,
where the selection function n̄(r), hence α(r), is a function only of depth
r, not of direction r̂ within the angular boundaries of the survey, is to take
α(r) to have the same value outside the angular boundaries as within. The
advantage of this choice is that it preserves the angular symmetry of the
‘true’ redshift correlation function about the observer. Beyond the radial
extent of the survey, α(r) could be set to zero, or any other convenient
choice.
The second comment is that the ambiguity disappears in the plane-
16
A. J. S. HAMILTON
parallel, or distant observer, limit, where the α term in the distortion operator goes to zero. In the plane-parallel limit, the ‘true’ redshift space
overdensity δs (s) becomes independent of the selection function, and the
‘true’ plane-parallel redshift space correlation function and power spectrum
are correspondingly independent of the selection function. This is the context in which the concept of a redshift space power spectrum is in any case
most often considered (§4.2.1).
Suppose hereafter then the true redshift space overdensity δs (s) has
been defined through all space, the ambiguity outside the boundaries of
the survey being resolved if possible as described in the previous two paragraphs. The redshift space correlation function ξ s (s12 , s1 , s2 ) is defined
by
ξ s (s12 , s1 , s2 ) ≡ hδs (s1 )δs (s2 )i .
(3.19)
Redshift distortions partially destroy the symmetry enjoyed by the unredshifted correlation function ξ(r12 ), so that the redshift correlation function
ξ s (s12 , s1 , s2 ) is a function of the redshift distances s1 and s2 as well as the
separation s12 of a pair of galaxies. Redshift distortions do however preserve
the rotational symmetry of the correlation function about the position of
the observer3 .
If the angle between the positions s1 and s2 of the galaxy pair is
small enough, then the line-of-sight redshift distortions are effectively planeparallel, as illustrated in the left panel of Figure 1, and the redshift correlation function ξ s reduces to a function only of the components s// and
s⊥ of the pair separation s12 respectively parallel and perpendicular to the
line of sight z
ξ s (s12 , s1 , s2 ) ≈ ξ s (s// , s⊥ ) .
(3.20)
The Fourier transform of the true redshift space overdensity defines the
redshift Fourier modes δ̂s (k) (here the necessity for δs (s) to be defined
everywhere, including outside the survey, is apparent)
s
δ̂ (k) ≡
Z
ik .s s
e
3
δ (s) d s ,
s
δ (s) =
Z
e−ik.s δ̂s (k) d3 k/(2π)3 .
(3.21)
The covariance of redshift Fourier modes defines the redshift space power
spectrum, which is equal to the Fourier transform of the redshift correlation function
hδ̂s (k1 ) δ̂s (k2 )i =
Z
eik1 .s1 +ik2 .s2 ξ s (s12 , s1 , s2 ) d3 s1 d3 s2 .
(3.22)
3
More correctly, the redshift correlation function has orientation symmetry provided
that the selection function is independent of direction over the parts of the sky surveyed
(which need not be the whole sky), as in a redshift survey with a uniform flux limit. A selection function that is variable with direction over the sky destroys orientation symmetry
about the observer, through the α(r) term in the redshift distortion operator (4.23).
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
17
The line-of-sight redshift distortions destroy statistical homogeneity, so that
the redshift power spectrum is no longer a diagonal matrix. The residual
orientation symmetry about the observer4 implies that the redshift power
spectrum is a function only of scalar combinations of its arguments
hδ̂s (k1 ) δ̂s (k2 )i = ξˆs (|k1 + k2 |, k1 , k2 ) .
(3.23)
In the plane-parallel approximation, however, redshift distortions do
preserve statistical homogeneity, and in that case the redshift power spectrum is again a diagonal matrix
hδ̂s (k1 ) δ̂s (k2 )i ≈ (2π)3 δD (k1 + k2 )P s (k1// , k1⊥ ) ,
(3.24)
where k1// and k1⊥ are the components of the wavevector k1 respectively
parallel and perpendicular to the line of sight z, and
s
P (k// , k⊥ ) ≡
Z
eik.s ξ s (s// , s⊥ ) d3 s .
(3.25)
s (s) and δ̂ s (k) in redshift space are defined analoSpherical modes δℓm
ℓm
gously to equations (3.7) and (3.8). Redshift distortions preserve rotational
symmetry about the observer (but see footnote 3), so the redshift correlation functions remain diagonal with respect to the angular indices ℓm.
Equations (3.7)–(3.11) take the same form in redshift space, aside from the
addition of s superscripts. The relation (3.12) is modified to
ξℓs (s1 , s2 )
2
= (4π)
Z
0
∞
jℓ (k1 s1 )jℓ (k2 s2 )ξ̂ℓs (k1 , k2 ) k12 dk1 k22 dk2 /(2π)6 (3.26)
and the correlation function of spherical modes in Fourier space becomes
K
hδ̂ℓs1 m1 (k1 ) δ̂ℓs2 m2 (k2 )i = (−)ℓ1 +m1 δℓK1 ℓ2 δm
ξ̂ s (k1 , k2 ) .
1 ,−m2 ℓ
(3.27)
3.2.2. The Observed Density Field and Shot Noise in Redshift Space
As in real space, in redshift space the observed galaxy density is subject
to Poisson sampling noise, or shot noise. In the Poisson process model
described in §3.1.2, the expectation value C s (s1 , s2 ) of the covariance of
s (s) defined by (3.17) is a sum of
observed redshift space overdensities δobs
the true redshift space correlation function ξ s (s12 , s1 , s2 ), equation (4.32),
with a Poisson sampling noise term
s
s
hδobs
(s1 )δobs
(s2 )i ≡ C s (s1 , s2 ) = ξ s (s12 , s1 , s2 ) + δD (s1 − s2 )[n̄(s1 )]−1
(3.28)
4
Again, orientation symmetry is strictly true only if the selection function is uniform
within the angular boundaries of the survey, because of the α(r) term in the redshift
distortion operator (4.23).
18
A. J. S. HAMILTON
which may be compared to the corresponding equation (3.15) in real space.
The coefficient [n̄(s1 )]−1 of the Dirac delta-function in the Poisson sampling term is valid for a flux-limited redshift survey; the coefficient could
conceivably be different if there were some criterion other than a flux
limit for selecting galaxies into the redshift survey. The form of the Poisson sampling term can be derived by an argument similar to the one in
real space which followed equation (3.15). An important part of the argument in redshift space is that the expectation value of the product of redshift densities in the same infinitesimal volume element is hns (s1 )ns (s2 )i =
δD (s1 − s2 )hns (s1 )i = δD (s1 − s2 )n̄(s1 ), the last step of which comes from
the fact that, in a flux-limited redshift survey, the ensemble-averaged expectation value of the redshift density at a point is equal to the real (not
redshift) selection function, hns (s)i = n̄(s).
Similarly, the expectation value C ss (s1 , s2 ) of the covariance of observed
ss (s) defined by (3.18) is a sum of the corredshift space overdensities δobs
responding true redshift space correlation function ξ ss (s12 , s1 , s2 ), equation (4.83), with a Poisson sampling noise term
n̄(s1 )
.
[n̄s (s1 )]2
(3.29)
s
2
Again, the coefficient n̄(s1 )/[n̄ (s1 )] of the Poisson sampling term is valid
for a flux-limited redshift survey. The form of the coefficient follows from
the same argument as that following equation (3.28).
Equation (3.28) shows that, in the Poisson process model, the covariance
of observed redshift space overdensities at any finite separation s1 6= s2
provides an unbiased estimate of the true redshift correlation function,
ss
ss
hδobs
(s1 )δobs
(s2 )i ≡ C ss (s1 , s2 ) = ξ ss (s12 , s1 , s2 ) + δD (s1 − s2 )
C s (s1 , s2 )s1 6=s2 = ξ s (s12 , s1 , s2 ) ,
(3.30)
similar to the corresponding result (3.16) in real space. Similarly, from
equation (3.29), C ss (s1 , s2 )s1 6=s2 = ξ ss (s12 , s1 , s2 ). As in real space, the
shot noise contribution to the survey covariance in redshift space can be
removed by excluding all self-pairs, consisting of a galaxy and itself.
3.3. HILBERT SPACE
It can be confusing to keep track of the mess of 2π’s and other factors, and
the juxtaposition of discrete and continuous quantities, in equations such
as (3.13). Hilbert space offers a compact, unifying formalism that takes
care of the bookkeeping and provides much insight. It is not the place of
this subsection to present a complete account of Hilbert space; rather, the
goal is to demonstrate how concepts familiar from quantum mechanics also
prove powerful in the present statistical context.
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
19
The overdensity can be regarded as a vector δ in an infinite-dimensional
vector space, Hilbert space. This vector has a meaning independent of the
basis, i.e. complete set of linearly independent functions, with respect to
which it is expanded. Thus for example the overdensity vector δ has components δr [= δ(r)] when expanded with respect to a basis of delta functions
in real space, and it has components δk [= δ̂(k), but now the hat is dropped
from δk in recognition of the fact δr and δk are really the same vector]
when expanded with respect to a basis of Fourier modes e−ik.r ; but from
a Hilbert space point of view the vector δ remains unchanged: only the
‘coordinate system’, the basis of expansion functions, changed. This is in
precise analogy to ordinary finite-dimensional vectors, which have a meaning independent of the particular coordinate system used to locate them.
Similarly, the covariance matrix
ξ = hδ δi
(3.31)
(not an inner product!) can be regarded as a matrix in Hilbert space, with,
for example, components ξr 1 r 2 in real space, or ξk1 k2 in Fourier space.
The quintessential property of Hilbert space is the existence of an inner
product, or scalar product, of any two vectors a and b, which maps the two
vectors into a scalar, a (complex-valued, in general) number. This scalar
value is independent of any basis with respect to which the vectors may be
expressed. Various compact notations exist for writing the scalar product:
ha|bi = Tr a† b = ai bi .
(3.32)
The first expression in (3.32) is the Dirac bra-ket notation, in which the
ket |ai denotes a vector and the bra ha| its Hermitian conjugate, the complex conjugate transpose of the vector (the angle brackets h i here are not
to be confused with statistical averages; in the Dirac notation, a vertical
line always separates the bra and the ket). The middle expression is matrix notation, in which the vector a† denotes the Hermitian conjugate of
the vector a, and Tr signifies the trace. The final expression of (3.32) is
the inner product in component form: the quantities ai are the components of the vector a with respect to some orthonormal basis of functions
(see eqs. [3.34], [3.36]), while the quantities ai = a∗i with raised index denote their Hermitian conjugates, and there is implicit summation over the
indices i (the similarity to tensor notation in general relativity is not coincidental). It is to be understood that the index i may be either discrete
or continuous, or a combination of both, and that in the continuous case
summation signifies integration with respect to some defined measure of i;
examples of the latter are seen immediately below. Other variants of the
inner product notation also occur, such as the omission of the trace sign
20
A. J. S. HAMILTON
Tr in the third expression, if there is no ambiguity, or the insertion of an
explicit summation or integration over i in the last expression. In practice
it may be typographically convenient to keep all indices lowered, it being
understood that when doubled indices occur, one of the pair is implicitly
raised, signifying the Hermitian conjugate.
In a statistically homogeneous 3-dimensional random field, equal volume
elements d3 r have equal statistical ‘weight’, so it is logical to define the inner
product of two (complex-valued, in general) functions a(r) and b(r) as an
integral over d3 r. With respect to the various bases encountered in §3.1,
the inner product of a(r) and b(r) can be written
ha|bi =
=
Z
Z
0
a∗ (r)b(r) d3 r =
∞X
Z
â∗ (k)b̂(k) d3 k/(2π)3
a∗ℓm (r)bℓm (r) r 2 dr =
ℓm
Z
0
∞X
(3.33)
â∗ℓm (k)b̂ℓm (k) k2 dk/(2π)3 .
ℓm
The equality between the real and Fourier integrals, the second and third
expressions in equation (3.33), is Parseval’s theorem, an apparent triviality
in the Hilbert formalism. Note that if the inner product is complex-valued,
then the order of the inner product matters: the inner product in the opposite order is its complex conjugate, hb|ai = ha|bi∗ .
A basis of functions ψi (r) is said to be orthonormal if their inner products constitute the unit matrix (see eq. [3.38])
Z
ψi (r)ψ j (r) d3 r = 1ji ,
X
ψ i (r)ψi (r ′ ) = δD (r − r ′ )
(3.34)
i
in which either equality implies the other, given that ψi (r) constitute a basis, a complete linearly independent set. In index notation, equations (3.34)
are
′
′
ψi r ψ jr = 1ji , ψ i r ψi r = 1r
(3.35)
r .
The orthonormal functions ψi (r j ) can be regarded as the rows of an orthonormal matrix Ψij , satisfying ΨΨ† = Ψ† Ψ = 1. The components ai of
a vector a with respect to the orthonormal basis ψi (r) are given by
ai =
Z
ψi (r)a(r) d3 r ,
a(r) =
X
ψ i (r)ai .
(3.36)
i
In index notation, these equations are
ai = ψi r ar ,
ar = ψ i r ai .
(3.37)
The rule that raising a lowered index i (or lowering a raised index i)
means take the complex conjugate works fine for vectors, but the rule becomes less easy to interpret for a matrix, where there is more than one
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
21
index. In practical calculations it is easier to apply an equivalent set of
rules, valid for matrices that are real-valued in real space (as is usually the
case for matrices of physical interest, such as the covariance matrix hδ δi,
eq. [3.31], or the linear redshift distortion operator S, eq. [4.23]). The rules,
which depend on the basis, are that raising (or lowering) an index i:
◦ in real space does nothing;
◦ in Fourier space transforms ki → −ki ;
◦ in rℓm-space transforms mi → −mi and multiplies by (−)mi ;
◦ in kℓm-space transforms mi → −mi and multiplies by (−)ℓi +mi .
The unit matrix 1ji , whether for discrete or continuous indices, is defined
by the property that
1ji aj = ai
(3.38)
for any vector ai . From this definition together with the definition (3.33) of
the inner product, it is straightforward to determine that the unit matrix in
real space is (the following equations [3.39]–[3.42] give both the unit matrix
and its expression with both indices lowered)
′
′
1r
r = δD (r − r ) ,
1rr ′ = δD (r − r ′ ) .
(3.39)
Similarly the unit matrix in Fourier space is
′
3
′
1k
k = (2π) δD (k − k ) ,
1kk′ = (2π)3 δD (k + k′ ) .
(3.40)
The unredshifted power spectrum (3.5) is thus recognized as being a diagonal matrix, with eigenvalues P (k). In spherical transform space with the
radial index in real space, the unit matrix is (abbreviating µ = rℓm)
′
K K
1µµ = δℓℓ
′ δmm′
δD (r − r ′ )
,
r2
K K
1µµ′ = (−)m δℓℓ
′ δm,−m′
δD (r − r ′ )
.
r2
(3.41)
In spherical transform space with the radial index in Fourier space, the unit
matrix is (abbreviating µ = kℓm)
(2π)3 δD (k − k′ )
(2π)3 δD (k − k′ )
ℓ+m K K
′ = (−)
δ
,
1
.
′ δm,−m′
µµ
ℓℓ
k2
k2
(3.42)
Thus again the unredshifted power spectrum (3.13) in kℓm-space is seen to
be a diagonal matrix, with eigenvalues P (k).
There is no need to go further here into the Hilbert space formalism,
which can be learned from any quantum mechanical textbook (e.g. Landau
& Lifshitz 1958). The advantage of the formalism is that it frees expressions,
such as the relation (4.22) between overdensity in real and redshift space, or
the expression (5.17) for the Gaussian likelihood function, from being tied to
′
K K
1µµ = δℓℓ
′ δmm′
22
A. J. S. HAMILTON
any particular basis, such as real space or Fourier space. If such expressions
are written in component form (i.e. the vectors and matrices are written
with indices), then any index can be regarded as referring to any basis
of functions, possibly a different basis for each index, with the following
two provisos: (1) indices and the bases to which they refer should match
between the left and right hand sides of an equation; (2) wherever paired
indices occur, indicating an inner product, they should be evaluated in the
same (arbitrary) basis. In evaluating an inner product, it suffices to bear
in mind two rules. First, one of a pair of indices i should always be raised
(implicitly, if not typographically) indicating the Hermitian conjugate; in
the case of Fourier space for example, this means using −ki for one index
and +ki for the other (at least for vectors and matrices that are realvalued in real space). Second, if the paired index is continuous, then the
volume element of integration is consistently the same, in accordance with
the definition of the inner product in the basis used; in Fourier space for
example, the volume element is d3 ki /(2π)3 , according to equation (3.33).
3.4. MERIT OF THE POWER SPECTRUM
Blackman & Tukey (1959, §B.3) in their classic text on power spectra state
“The autocovariance function is of little use except as a basis for measuring
the power spectrum”. The power spectrum of large scale structure in the
Universe was apparently first measured by Yu & Peebles (1969) and Peebles
(1973).
The fundamental advantage of the (true, unredshifted) power spectrum
is that the Fourier modes of a statistically homogeneous random field are
uncorrelated: their covariance matrix hδ̂(k1 )δ̂(k2 )i is a diagonal matrix,
equation (3.5). Modes that are uncorrelated are said to be statistically
orthogonal. The statistical orthogonality of Fourier modes does not imply
that they are independent in general, but it does imply that they are independent in the important case of a multivariate Gaussian field, for which
by definition the 3-point and all higher correlation functions are zero.
Note that the advantage of the power spectrum over (for example) the
spatial correlation function is not that it contains any more information —
the power spectrum and the correlation function have precisely the same
information content — but rather that the power spectrum parcels the
information into uncorrelated chunks.
The statistical orthogonality of the (true, unredshifted) Fourier modes
is intimately associated with the assumed translation invariance of the statistical properties of the density field. As is familiar from quantum mechanics, the translation operator, the generator of an infinitesimal translation, is
−i∂/∂r, which is also the momentum operator k (Landau & Lifshitz 1958,
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
23
§15). The eigenfunctions of the translation operator −i∂/∂r are just the
Fourier modes δ̂(k), P
with eigenvalues k. The operator of an overall translation is −i∂/∂RP≡ −i∂/∂r, which is the same as the total momentum
operator K ≡
k. The sum here is over all relevant coordinates, e.g.
the 2 coordinates of the 2-point correlation function. Statistical homogeneity means that the statistical properties, the correlation functions, of the
density field are unchanged by an overall translation, ∂ξ/∂R = 0, or equivalently
Kξ = 0. Thus the correlation functions have zero total momentum,
P
K = k = 0, as in equation (3.5).
Similarly, the statistical orthogonality of (true, unredshifted) spherical
modes with respect to angular indices ℓm, equations (3.11) and (3.13),
is intimately associated with statistical isotropy about the observer (or
indeed about any other point). The operator of an infinitesimal rotation
is the angular momentum operator l, whose eigenmodes are the spherical
harmonics Yℓm . Statistical isotropy (about some point) implies that the
correlation
functions have zero total angular momentum (about that point),
P
L = l = 0, as in equations (3.11) and (3.13).
Redshift distortions destroy translation invariance, but they preserve
isotropy about the observer (but see footnote 3), and hence also preserve
the statistical orthogonality of spherical modes with respect to the angular
indices ℓm. Thus, as emphasized by Fisher, Scharf & Lahav (1994) and
Heavens & Taylor (1995), the advantage of the power spectrum can best
be preserved in redshift space by working in spherical harmonics.
The statistical orthogonality of Fourier modes windowed through any
finite survey (i.e., if the overdensity is multiplied by the, possibly weighted,
selection function of the survey) is destroyed by the fact that the survey
is not translation invariant, especially at wavelengths approaching the size
of the survey. Similarly, the statistical orthogonality of spherical modes
windowed through a non-all-sky survey is destroyed by the break down of
rotational symmetry. However, the desirability of measuring quantities that
are uncorrelated remains. Ways to construct statistically orthogonal modes
in real surveys are described by Vogeley & Szalay (1996), Tegmark, Taylor
& Heavens (1997), and Tegmark et al. (1997), and ways to decorrelate power
spectra are described by Hamilton (1997), and Tegmark et al. (1997).
4. Theory of Linear Redshift Distortions
The theory of linear redshift distortions was greatly clarified in a fundamental paper by Kaiser (1987). Although the existence of large scale redshift
distortions and the possibility of using them to measure the cosmological
density Ω0 had been recognized previously (Sargent & Turner 1977; Peebles 1980, §76B), the complete, correct equations describing linear redshift
24
A. J. S. HAMILTON
distortions were first derived by Kaiser.
The linear distortion equations are presented in §4.2. First, however, it
is useful to discuss what the linear distortion parameter β, which is the
quantity actually measurable from linear redshift distortions, and the focus
of much of the fuss, actually means.
4.1. THE LINEARIZED CONTINUITY EQUATION
I vividly recall a conversation with Jerry Ostriker (in 1991, I believe) in
which I was excitedly explaining how one could measure the cosmological
density Ω0 from redshift distortions in the linear regime. Jerry, a fan of explosive cosmologies (Ostriker & Cowie 1981), was unimpressed. He pointed
out that redshift distortions are no more than a consequence of the continuity equation, that the continuity equation is of widespread applicability,
and that what redshift distortions measure is not Ω0 but rather (exact
quote) “a dimensionless number of no particular significance”.
Jerry’s view may be on the blueshifted side of the spectrum of perspectives, but his point is well taken. Physically, to grow an overdense region,
galaxies have to move in the general direction of the overdensity. More precisely, the value of β that is measured from redshift distortions in the linear
regime is the value that solves the linearized continuity equation
βδ + ∇.v = 0 .
(4.1)
Actually, an additional proposition enters here, which is that the peculiar
velocity field v is irrotational (has zero vorticity), as predicted by gravitational growth theory. These matters are explained below. The reader
who wishes to gain insight into the problem is invited to solve the problem
illustrated in Figure 4.
When dealing with dynamics in cosmology, it is convenient to work in a
comoving coordinate system, which expands with the general Hubble
expansion of the Universe. To maintain contact with observational reality,
it is also useful, as in §1, to express comoving distances in velocity units
evaluated at the present day, using the present day values H0 of the Hubble
constant and a0 of the cosmic scale factor to relate comoving distance and
velocity. Thus let r denote the comoving (unredshifted) position of a galaxy,
measured in velocity units at the present time (r is related to Peebles’ 1980
§7 comoving distance x by r = H0 a0 x). For example, the comoving distance
to the Coma cluster is r ≈ 7000 km s−1 , as inferred from its measured
redshift; by definition of comoving coordinates, this comoving distance does
not change (much) as the Universe expands.
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
w
No
v
β
∆r
B
ang
25
1
g
vin t
mo emen ng
o
C lac Ba
p
dis e Big
c
n
si
a
ity e
loc t tim
e
V se n
re
tp
Figure 4. Problem: From the linearized continuity equation (4.1) show that, in the linear
regime, the peculiar velocity v of a particle (galaxy) at the present time is related to its
comoving displacement ∆r (measured in velocity units) since the Big Bang by v = β∆r .
In deriving this result you will need to assume that the density field is initially uniform,
and that the velocity is the gradient of a potential. Amongst other things, you should
find that in the linear regime particles move in straight lines.
The proper peculiar velocity v of a galaxy is its proper velocity in
the comoving frame
a dr
dr
v≡
=
(4.2)
H0 a0 dt
dτ
where t is proper time, τ is the dimensionless conformal time defined by
dτ ≡ H0 a0 dt/a, and a(τ ) is the cosmic scale factor. One of the advantages
of working with conformal time is that objects (e.g. photons) moving at
the speed of light c have peculiar velocities dr/dτ = c at all times.
At this point it is necessary to distinguish carefully between matter,
which satisfies a continuity equation, and galaxies, which, thanks to galaxy
formation and later merging, may not. The continuity, Euler, and Poisson
equations for cold (pressureless) matter (subscripted M ) in a perturbed
Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Universe are, expressed in the comoving coordinate system (Hui & Bertschinger 1996),
∂δM
+ ∇.(1 + δM )v M = 0
∂τ
(4.3)
∂av M
+ v M .∇v M = −∇φ
a ∂τ
(4.4)
∇2 φ =
3ΩM H 2 a2 δM
4πGρ̄M a2 δM
=
H02 a20
2H02 a20
(4.5)
where ∇ ≡ ∂/∂r is the comoving gradient, ρ̄M ∝ a−3 is the proper mean
matter density, and the cosmological matter density ΩM and Hubble constant H both evolve in time. In the linear regime, where |δM | ≪ 1, the
26
A. J. S. HAMILTON
continuity and Euler equations reduce to
∂δM
+ ∇.v M = 0
∂τ
(4.6)
∂av M
= −∇φ .
a ∂τ
(4.7)
If the peculiar velocity is decomposed (as can always be done) into its
gradient (irrotational, or longitudinal, or scalar) and curl (rotational, or
transverse, or vector) parts,
C
vM = v G
M + vM ,
(4.8)
in which the longitudinal part v G
M = ∇ψ is the gradient of some scalar
potential ψ, while the transverse part vC
M = ∇ × A is the curl of some
vector potential A, then the linearized Euler equation (4.7) becomes
∂av G
M
= −∇φ ,
a ∂τ
∂av C
M
=0.
a ∂τ
(4.9)
The second of equations (4.9) shows that the curl part of the velocity decays
−1 as the Universe expands, so should be sensibly equal to zero in
as v C
M ∝a
the absence of a mechanism to generate vorticity. If only gravity operates,
then the peculiar velocity in the linear regime should be pure gradient.
When the linearized continuity (4.6), linearized Euler (4.7), and Poisson (4.5) equations are combined, the result is a second order linear differential equation for the overdensity δM , which, when further combined with
the unperturbed solution for the evolution a(τ ) of the cosmic scale factor,
leads to growing and decaying solutions (Peebles 1980, §§10–13; Padmanabhan 1993, §4.5)
δM (r, τ ) ∝ D(τ )
(4.10)
which evolve in time without change of shape. The interesting solution is
the unstable, growing solution, and D(τ ) below is taken to be the linear
growth factor of the growing mode. The linearized continuity equation (4.6)
can then be written
Haf
δM + ∇.v M = 0
(4.11)
H0 a0
where f is the dimensionless linear growth rate of the growing mode
f≡
H0 a0 d ln D
d ln D
=
.
Ha dτ
d ln a
(4.12)
27
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
In the standard pressureless matter-dominated cosmology, the dimensionless growth rate f is an analytic function of ΩM with a celebrated approximation as a power law5 (Peebles 1980, eq. [14.8])
f (ΩM ) ≈ Ω0.6
M .
(4.13)
Lahav et al. (1991) give an approximation in the case where there is a
cosmological constant6 so that the total cosmological density is a sum of
matter and cosmological constant parts, Ω = ΩM + ΩΛ :
f (ΩM , ΩΛ ) ≈ Ω0.6
M +
ΩM
ΩΛ
1+
70
2
.
(4.14)
Evidently the growth rate f depends mainly on the matter density ΩM ,
and is only weakly dependent on the cosmological constant.
Equation (4.11) is the continuity equation for the matter; to go from
this to the continuity equation (4.1) for galaxies involves one further issue
— bias.
For more than a decade it has been apparent that galaxies may not constitute an unbiased tracer of the underlying matter density. If galaxies were
an unbiased tracer of the matter, they would, by definition, satisfy δ = δM
(see footnote7 ). That some bias exists, at least in some galaxy populations,
follows from the fact that galaxies selected in different ways have correlation functions with different amplitudes (e.g. Peacock & Dodds 1994; Oliver
et al. 1996; Peacock 1997). For example, the correlation function of optical
galaxies is approximately a factor of 2 larger than that of IRAS galaxies,
a fact evident from Figure 3, which demonstrates that optical galaxies and
IRAS galaxies cannot both be unbiased tracers (Oliver et al. 1996).
The simplest model of bias postulates that the galaxy overdensity δ is
linearly biased by a constant factor, the linear bias factor b, relative to
the underlying mass density δM , so that
δ = bδM ,
5
(4.15)
Occasionally a small fuss is made about the exponent of the power law in this approximation (cf. Lightman & Schechter 1990). A sensible person would use the exact
analytic expression for f (ΩM ) when reporting actual results.
6
Einstein’s cosmological constant Λ, which could arise from a non-zero vacuum density
ρvac , is related to ΩΛ by Λ = 8πGρvac = 3H 2 ΩΛ .
7
Since galaxies come as discrete units, one should understand this equation in a probabilistic sense. Galaxies are unbiased if the probability of finding a galaxy in a volume
element dV at position r is proportional to the amount of matter ρM (r)dV in that volume
element. The discretized galaxy density n(r) is then said to be a Poisson process, with
mean proportional to ρM (r). The statistical properties of such a discretized distribution,
i.e. its 2-point and higher correlation functions, coincide with those of the underlying
matter density field aside from the addition of delta-function discreteness terms at zero
separation (cf. §3.1.2).
28
A. J. S. HAMILTON
whereas galaxy velocities faithfully follow the velocity of matter
v = vM .
(4.16)
The linear biasing model (4.15) was originally motivated by threshold
biasing, in which galaxies are supposed to form only where the matter
density exceeds a certain threshold (Kaiser 1984), and by peaks biasing
where galaxies form at the peaks of the matter density (Bardeen et al. 1986).
These models predict that, at least in some regimes, the galaxy correlation
function ξ(r12 ) ≡ hδ(r 1 )δ(r 2 )i should be amplified over the matter correlation function ξM (r12 ) ≡ hδM (r 1 )δM (r 2 )i by an approximately constant
factor
ξ(r12 ) ≈ b2 ξM (r12 ) .
(4.17)
What is true observationally is that the correlation functions of galaxies selected in different ways differ mainly in their amplitudes, but only weakly in
their shapes (Peacock & Dodds 1994; Peacock 1997). Ultimately, it remains
unclear how nature chooses to bias galaxies in reality.
The linearized continuity equation (4.11) for the matter, evaluated at
the present time, together with the linear bias model (4.15), yield the linearized continuity equation (4.1) for galaxies, where the dimensionless quantity β is related to the present day value f0 of the linear growth rate f ,
equation (4.13) or (4.14), and the bias factor b, equation (4.15), by
β=
f0
.
b
(4.18)
With the standard formula (4.13) for f , this becomes the oft-quoted relation (1.5).
If the matter peculiar velocity v M is curl-free in the linear regime (see
the argument following eq. [4.9]), and the galaxy velocity is unbiased, equation (4.16), then the galaxy peculiar velocity field v is also curl-free in the
linear regime. The linearized galaxy continuity equation (4.1) then implies
that the galaxy peculiar velocity v is related to the galaxy overdensity δ at
the present day by
v = −β∇∇−2 δ
(4.19)
where ∇−2 is the inverse Laplacian. All measurements of β in the linear
regime are in effect measurements of the ratio of the peculiar velocity v
to the galaxy overdensity δ, the (testable) relation (4.19) being assumed to
hold true. This is true not only in the case of large scale redshift distortions,
but also for measurements of β from direct comparison of overdensities and
peculiar velocities (Strauss & Willick 1995), or from comparison of the
peculiar motion of the Local Group of galaxies to the dipole anisotropy of
galaxies over the sky (Strauss et al. 1992b).
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
29
Two final points about bias are worth making. Firstly, the linear bias
model (4.15) must break down in the nonlinear regime (if b > 1, as generally expected), since otherwise equation (4.15) would predict that regions
empty of matter, δM = −1, would have negative galaxy density, which is
impossible. Various models of nonlinear biasing can be contemplated (Fry
& Gaztañaga 1993; Mann, Peacock & Heavens 1997).
Secondly, if a linear bias bi is established so δ(r, ti ) = bi δM (r, ti ) at
some initial time ti , after which galaxies satisfy continuity (being neither
created nor destroyed), so that [1+δ(r)]/[1+δM (r)] ∝ n(r)/ρM (r) remains
constant in Lagrangian elements after the initial time ti , then the bias factor
b = δ/δM evolves. During linear growth, |δM | ≪ 1, the bias decreases in
time while remaining constant in space,
b(t) − 1 =
D(ti )
(bi − 1) ,
D(t)
(4.20)
where D(t)/D(ti ) = δM (r, t)/δM (r, ti ) is the linear growth factor. Equation (4.20) shows that the action of continuity is to drive the bias factor
closer to (but not necessarily all the way to) unity, as fluctuations grow. If
continuity persists into the nonlinear regime, then the bias factor becomes
a function also of position,
1
+ 1 (bi − 1)
b(r, t) − 1 = δM (r, ti )
δM (r, t)
(4.21)
saturating at b = 1 in underdense regions (as δM (r, t) → −1), and at
b = 1 + δM (r, ti )(bi − 1) in overdense regions (as δM (r, t) → ∞). In the
nonlinear regime, streams from several different initial points may overlap
at the same final point, so correctly equation (4.21) should be averaged
over streams.
The model described in the previous paragraph is of course simplistic.
The point is that the bias factor b probably evolves, and that there is a
mechanism — continuity — that tends to drive the bias factor closer to
unity, that is, to make galaxies less biased as time goes on.
4.2. THE LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTION OPERATOR
In the linear regime, the overdensity δs in redshift space is related to the
overdensity δ in real space by a linear redshift distortion operator S,
δs = S δ .
(4.22)
Conceptually, it is helpful to recognize that the linear redshift distortion
operator S is just a linear operator (a matrix in Hilbert space), much like the
30
A. J. S. HAMILTON
linear operators one encounters in quantum mechanics. In real (as opposed
to Fourier, say) space, the distortion operator, derived immediately below,
is an integro-differential operator (the inverse Laplacian ∇−2 is the integral
part)
!
α(r)∂
∂2
+
∇−2
(4.23)
S=1+β
∂r 2
r∂r
where α(r) is the logarithmic derivative of r 2 times the real space selection
function n̄(r),
∂ ln r 2 n̄(r)
α(r) ≡
.
(4.24)
∂ ln r
The redshift distortion operator (4.23) is valid in the frame of reference of
stationary observers, those at rest with respect to the Cosmic Microwave
Background (CMB), and provided that the redshift overdensity δs (r) is defined relative to the real space selection function n̄(r), as in equation (3.17).
The modifications to the linear redshift distortion operator S for the cases
where the redshift overdensity is defined in the Local Group frame, and/or
relative to the selection function n̄s (r) measured in redshift space, are given
by equations (4.46), (4.75), and (4.81).
The linear redshift distortion equations were first derived by Kaiser
(1987, §2). The derivation below follows most closely that of Hamilton &
Culhane (1996, §2).
The starting point of the derivation of the linear redshift distortion
operator (4.23) is a conservation equation for galaxies, which expresses the
fact that peculiar velocities displace galaxies along the line of sight, but
they do not make galaxies appear or disappear (this conservation equation
is not the same as the dynamical continuity equation discussed in §4.1)
ns (s) d3 s = n(r) d3 r .
(4.25)
In terms of the redshift space overdensity δs (s) defined by equation (3.17),
the galaxy conservation equation (4.25) is
n̄(s)[1 + δs (s)] s2 ds = n̄(r)[1 + δ(r)] r 2 dr .
(4.26)
With the relation between redshift position s and real position r
s = r + vr̂ ,
(4.27)
equation (4.26) rearranges to
∂v
r 2 n̄(r)
1+
1 + δ (s) =
2
(r + v) n̄(r + vr̂)
∂r
s
−1
[1 + δ(r)] .
(4.28)
31
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
So far equation (4.28) is exact, valid in the linear and nonlinear regimes,
at least until orbit-crossing occurs.
The next step is to linearize equation (4.28). In addition to the linear
theory assumption |δ(r)| ≪ 1, which also implies |∂v/∂r| ≪ 1 if the velocity v is given by linear theory, equation (4.31), it is necessary to assume
that peculiar velocities v of galaxies are small compared to their distances
r from the observer (actually, this assumption can be dropped, if the redshift space overdensity δs (r) in the CMB frame is constructed according to
equation [4.52]; see §4.3.2),
|v| ≪ r .
(4.29)
To linear order equation (4.28) then reduces to (note in particular that
δs (s) = δs (r) to linear order)
s
δ (r) = δ(r) −
α(r)
∂
+
v
∂r
r
(4.30)
where α(r) is defined by (4.24). In linear theory, the peculiar velocity v is
given by equation (4.19), so the line-of-sight component v of the peculiar
velocity in the CMB frame is
v = −β
∂ −2
∇ δ.
∂r
(4.31)
Inserting this formula into equation (4.30) yields the distortion equation (4.22) with the redshift distortion operator S given by equation (4.23),
as was to be proven.
It follows from equation (4.22) that the redshift correlation function
ξ s (r12 , r1 , r2 ), equation (3.19), in the linear regime is related to its unredshifted counterpart ξ(r12 ) by
ξ s (r12 , r1 , r2 ) = S1 S2 ξ(r12 )
"
= 1+β
∂2
∂r12
+
α(r 1 )∂
r1 ∂r1
!
(4.32)
∇−2
1
#"
1+β
∂2
∂r22
+
α(r 2 )∂
r2 ∂r2
!
#
ξ(r12 ) .
∇−2
2
This equation is correct for observers who are located randomly in the
Universe, who are at rest with respect to the CMB, and who define the
redshift overdensity relative to the real space selection function n̄(r), as in
equation (3.17). As discussed in §3.2.2, in a real redshift survey, where the
overdensity field is sampled by discrete galaxies, the correlation function
of the observed overdensity field contains an additional shot noise term,
equation (3.28).
We, sitting on a galaxy, the Milky Way, are not at a random location,
but reside in an overdense region of the Universe, as galaxies are wont to
32
A. J. S. HAMILTON
Density
Observer
Figure 5. A wave of amplitude δ(k) in real space (thin line) appears as a wave with
enhanced amplitude δ s (k) in redshift space (thick line) because of peculiar velocities
(arrows). If the wavevector k is along the line of sight, then the amplification factor is
1 + β. More generally, a wave that is angled to the line of sight appears amplified in
redshift space by a factor 1 + βµ2k , equation (4.35), where µk ≡ ẑ.k̂ is the cosine of the
angle between the wavevector k and the line of sight z.
do. To guard against ‘local bias’, it would a reasonable precaution to excise
at least part of the local region when analysing a galaxy survey.
Furthermore, we are not at rest in the CMB. What to do about that is
discussed in §4.3.
Finally, it is much more straightforward to measure the selection function n̄s (r) in redshift space than in real space. What to do about that is
discussed in §4.4.
4.2.1. The Linear Plane-Parallel Redshift Distortion Operator
In the plane-parallel, or distant observer, limit, the linear distortion operator (4.23) reduces to (the superscript p denotes plane-parallel)
Sp = 1 + β
∂ 2 −2
∇
∂z 2
(4.33)
where z is distance along the line of sight. In Fourier space, (∂/∂z)2 ∇−2 =
kz2 /k2 = µ2k , where µk ≡ ẑ.k̂ is the cosine of the angle between the wavevector k and the line of sight z. Thus in Fourier space the plane-parallel distortion operator reduces to a diagonal operator
Sp = 1 + βµ2k ,
(4.34)
so that, as illustrated in Figure 5, a Fourier mode δ̂s (k) in redshift space is
simply equal to the unredshifted mode δ̂(k) amplified by a factor 1 + βµ2k
δ̂s (k) = (1 + βµ2k )δ̂(k) .
(4.35)
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
33
It follows from equation (4.35) that, in the plane-parallel approximation,
the redshift space power spectrum P s (k) is amplified by (1 + βµ2k )2 over
its unredshifted counterpart P (k)
P s (k) = (1 + βµ2k )2 P (k) ,
(4.36)
an elegant formula first pointed out by Kaiser (1987, eq. [3.5]).
The simplicity of formula (4.36) arises from the fact that the planeparallel distortion operator is diagonal in Fourier space, which is intimately associated with the fact that plane-parallel redshift distortions preserve translation invariance. The translation operator −i∇ commutes with
the plane-parallel distortion operator, and therefore the eigenmodes of the
translation operator −i∇, which are precisely the Fourier modes δ̂(k), are
also eigenmodes of the plane-parallel distortion operator.
Translation invariance means that redshifted Fourier modes remain statistically orthogonal in the plane-parallel approximation, equation (3.24),
preserving the advantage of the unredshifted power spectrum (§3.4).
4.2.2. The Linear Radial Redshift Distortion Operator
Unfortunately, the full distortion operator (4.23), which I call here the radial redshift distortion operator8 to distinguish it from the plane-parallel
distortion operator (4.33) or (4.34), proves to be quite a bit more complicated to deal with than the plane-parallel operator. The radial operator
destroys translation symmetry, so that Fourier modes are no longer eigenmodes of the distortion operator, and the redshift space power spectrum
hδs (k1 )δs (k2 )i is no longer a diagonal matrix. The linear radial distortion
operator in Fourier space is an integral operator, a continuous matrix,
Ŝ(k, k′ ) =
Z
′
eik.r S(r)e−ik .r d3 r
(4.37)
!
∂
∂2
k−2 − β α̂(k − k′ ) ′ k′ ∇−2′ k′−2
= (2π) δD (k − k ) 1 + β 2 k2 ∇−2
k
k
∂k
∂k
3
′
R
where ∇k ≡ ∂/∂k, and α̂(k) ≡ α(r)eik.r d3 r is the Fourier transform
of α(r). The distortion operator (4.37) yields the redshifted Fourier modes
δ̂s (k) when acting on the unredshifted Fourier modes δ̂(k)
δ̂s (k) =
Z
Ŝ(k, k′ )δ̂(k′ ) d3 k′ /(2π)3 .
(4.38)
The form of the linear radial distortion operator in Fourier space is discussed by Zaroubi & Hoffman (1996).
8
Hamilton & Culhane (1996) call it the spherical distortion operator.
34
A. J. S. HAMILTON
The radial redshift distortion operator does however preserve angular
symmetry about the observer9 , so that at least some of the merits of the
power spectrum can be retained by working in spherical harmonics. In
particular, spherical harmonic modes remain statistically orthogonal with
respect to the angular indices in redshift space (§3.4), a point emphasized
and taken advantage of first by Fisher, Scharf & Lahav (1994), and then
by Heavens & Taylor (1995). Mathematically, the distortion operator S
commutes with the angular momentum operator L, so that the eigenmodes
of the angular momentum operator, which are the spherical harmonics Yℓm ,
are also eigenmodes of the distortion operator.
Hamilton & Culhane (1996, §4) point out that the linear radial distortion operator (4.23) is nearly scale-free, to the extent that the quantity α(r) is approximately constant. If follows that the distortion operator commutes approximately with the operator ∂/∂ ln r, the logarithmic derivative with respect to depth r, or equivalently with the operator ∂/∂ ln k = −∂/∂ ln r − 3, the logarithmic derivative with respect to
wavenumber k. A complete set of commuting Hermitian operators for the
spherical distortion operator S is then, to the extent that α(r) is constant,
3
∂
+
−i
∂ ln r 2
3
∂
+
=i
∂ ln k 2
, L2 , Lz .
(4.39)
The operators L2 and Lz are the square and z-component (along some arbitrary axis) of the angular momentum operator L = i r ×∂/∂r = i k×∂/∂k,
which is the same operator in real and Fourier space. The radial eigenfunctions are radial waves in logarithmic depth r or wavenumber k, while the
angular eigenfunctions are the usual orthonormal spherical harmonics Yℓm .
Thus the eigenfunctions of the commuting set (4.39) are spherical waves
with radial parts in logarithmic real or Fourier space.
There are two drawbacks to the basis of logarithmic spherical waves
proposed by Hamilton & Culhane. First, α(r), the logarithmic derivative of
r 2 n̄(r), equation (4.24), is not really constant, although it is slowly varying,
and it is typically nearly constant in the nearer part of a redshift survey
where the selection function is found empirically to approximate a power
9
Correctly, the distortion operator preserves angular symmetry to the extent that the
selection function is independent of direction, so that the quantity α(r) in the distortion
operator (4.23) is a function α(r) only of depth r, as is true in a survey that is uniformly
flux-limited within its angular boundaries. Over unsurveyed regions of the sky (where
α(r) is zero divided by zero), the distortion operator can be taken to have the same
form as over the surveyed part, as discussed in §3.2.1. To avoid confusion, it should
be understood that it is the ‘true’ redshift power spectrum that possesses orientation
symmetry. When the power spectrum is windowed through a non-all-sky survey, then the
lack of angular symmetry of the window destroys the angular symmetry of the windowed
redshift power spectrum.
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
35
law. The second problem is that it is not enough that the modes should be
eigenfunctions of the distortion operator. It is also desired that the modes be
statistically orthogonal, or nearly so. Now the modes would be statistically
orthogonal if the power spectrum were, like the distortion operator, scalefree, i.e. a power law P (k) ∝ kn , which may not be a bad approximation
in reality. However, in any real survey, Poisson sampling noise, §§3.1.2 and
3.2.2, destroys the scale-free symmetry, except in the case that the power
spectrum itself is that of Poisson noise, P (k) = constant. It remains to be
seen if this idea can be exploited.
The radial redshift distortion operator (4.23) is not Hermitian, unlike
the plane-parallel distortion operator (4.33), which is Hermitian. Amongst
other things, this means that the eigenfunctions of the radial distortion
operator do not all have real eigenvalues. Presumably this means that redshift distortions cause modes close to the observer to undergo a ‘phase shift’
in passing from real to redshift space. The Hermitian conjugate S† of the
distortion operator is
†
S = 1 + β∇
−2 −2
r
∂
∂r
α(r) 2
∂
−
r .
∂r
r
(4.40)
Equation (4.40) is valid in the CMB frame. The Hermitian conjugate of
the redshift distortion operator in the Local Group frame is given by equation (4.50).
Tegmark & Bromley (1995) derive an expression for the inverse S−1 , the
Green’s function, of the distortion operator for the particular case α = 2,
corresponding to a volume-limited sample.
4.3. PECULIAR VELOCITY OF THE LOCAL GROUP
The redshift distortion operator (4.23) is valid from the point of view of
observers at rest with respect to the CMB. The Milky Way however is not
stationary, but moving. The linear part of the motion of the Milky Way is
the peculiar velocity of the Local Group (LG) of galaxies. The essential
feature of the Local Group, which contains about 30 galaxies including our
own, is that it is the local region of space, about 1 Mpc in radius, that has
turned around from the general Hubble expansion of the Universe, and is
beginning to fall together for the first time.
In the LG frame, the redshift distance sLG of a galaxy at true position
r relative to the observer is
sLG = r + v − r̂.v LG
(4.41)
which differs from the redshift distance s = r + v in the CMB frame by the
component of −v LG along the direction r̂ to the galaxy. From conservation
36
A. J. S. HAMILTON
of galaxies, nLG (sLG ) d3 sLG = n(s) d3 s, one concludes that, at distances
much greater than the LG peculiar velocity, r ≫ v LG , the redshift space
overdensity δsLG (r) observed in the LG frame is related to the redshift
space overdensity δs (r) in the CMB frame by
δsLG (r) = δs (r) + α(r)
r̂.v LG
.
r
(4.42)
The difference term is a dipole directed along the LG motion v LG , modulated by the function α(r), equation (4.24).
Since the LG shares in the linear motion of the nearby region, there is
no dipole distortion of the nearby region in the LG frame. A dipole distortion appears in the CMB frame because of the streaming of galaxies past
the stationary observer. Galaxies streaming toward the observer appear
compressed to a smaller volume in redshift space by the spherical convergence of the volume element, and conversely galaxies downstream appear
decompressed.
Two general strategies to deal with the redshift distortion produced (or
rather removed) by the motion of the LG are described below. A third
strategy is to ignore the problem, which is what the plane-parallel approximation does.
4.3.1. The Distortion Operator in the Local Group Frame
The first strategy, used by Fisher, Scharf & Lahav (1994), is to work entirely
in the LG frame, and to write the LG peculiar velocity as its value in linear
theory, which is given by the usual formula (4.19) for peculiar velocity,
evaluated at the position of the LG, the origin, r = 0:
v LG = −β
An equivalent expression is
v LG = β
∂ ∇−2 δ .
∂r r =0
Z
r̂δ(r) 3
d r
4πr 2
(4.43)
(4.44)
which expresses the usual fact that peculiar velocity in linear theory is
proportional to peculiar gravity, which is proportional to the integrated
dipole overdensity about the observer.
The value (4.43), inserted in equation (4.42), combined with the redshift
distortion equation δs = Sδ in the CMB frame, equation (4.22), yields the
distortion equation for the redshift overdensity δsLG in the LG frame
δsLG = SLG δ
(4.45)
37
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
where SLG is the linear redshift distortion operator (4.23) modified to the
LG frame
LG
S
"
∂
∂ α(r)r̂
∂2
.
−
+
=1+β
∂r 2
r
∂r
∂r r =0
#
∇−2 .
(4.46)
The first ∂/∂r in the α term is the gradient evaluated at the position r,
while ∂/∂r|r =0 is the gradient evaluated at the position of the LG. The
assumption of linear theory here automatically guarantees that the peculiar
velocities of galaxies in the LG frame are small compared to their distances,
|v − r̂.v LG | ≪ r ,
(4.47)
unlike the corresponding condition (4.29) in the CMB frame, which had to
be incorporated as an additional assumption.
The redshift distortion operator SLG in the LG frame, equation (4.46),
can also be derived directly along the same lines as the derivation in §4.2 of
the distortion operator S in the CMB frame, equation (4.23). The main difference is to replace v → v − r̂.v LG throughout the derivation; for example,
equation (4.30) in the CMB frame changes, in the LG frame, to
δs (r) = δ(r) −
α(r)
∂
+
(v − r̂.v LG )
∂r
r
(4.48)
which is Kaiser’s (1987) equation (3.3).
The redshift correlation function ξ sLG (r12 , r1 , r2 ) in the LG frame is
related to the unredshifted correlation function ξ(r12 ) by
LG
ξ sLG (r12 , r1 , r2 ) = SLG
1 S2 ξ(r12 )
(4.49)
which may be compared to the corresponding equation (4.32) in the CMB
frame.
The Hermitian conjugate of the linear distortion operator SLG in the LG
frame can be written in a variety of ways. One of the simpler ways, which
however does not reveal the subtraction of the LG velocity as manifestly
as does the expression (4.46) for the distortion operator SLG itself, is
α(r) 2
∂
r̂ ∂ −
∇−2 α(r)r ,
r − 2.
S
=1+β ∇ r
∂r
r
r ∂r r =0
(4.50)
in which the last term inside the square brackets on the right hand side
is the term arising from the motion of the LG. This equation (4.50) may
be compared to the corresponding equation (4.40) for the Hermitian conjugate S† of the distortion operator in the CMB frame. Equation (4.50) is
LG†
−2 −2
∂
∂r
38
A. J. S. HAMILTON
used in equation (8.13), and the equation (8.14) following that one gives
a rearrangement that brings out the subtraction of the LG velocity more
clearly.
4.3.2. Using the Known Value of the Local Group Motion
The second strategy to deal with the motion of the LG is to use its known
value, measured from the dipole anisotropy of the CMB radiation, corrected
for the motion of the solar system about the centre of the Milky Way, and
for the motion of the Milky Way within the Local Group (Yahil, Tammann
& Sandage 1977). The LG peculiar velocity is (Kogut et al. 1993, Table 3;
Lineweaver et al. 1996)
v LG = 627 ± 22 km s−1
towards
l = 276◦ ± 3◦ , b = 30◦ ± 3◦
(4.51)
in the constellation of Hydra.
Thus if the redshift overdensity δsLG is measured in the LG frame,
then it can be corrected to yield the overdensity δs in the CMB frame by
subtracting a dipole term in accordance with equation (4.42),
δs (r) = δsLG (r) − α(r)
r̂.v LG
.
r
(4.52)
If α(r) is a function only of depth r, independent of direction, then the
adjustment is a pure dipole overdensity, but in the general case the adjustment involves other harmonics also. The redshift correlation function of the
overdensity in the CMB frame is given by equation (4.32).
An alternative version of the second strategy is to adjust the redshift
distances from the LG frame to the CMB frame using equation (4.41),
s = sLG + r̂.v LG , and to measure the overdensity δs in the resulting CMB
frame. However, this alternative version is not equivalent to the original
when the condition |v| ≪ r is violated. Closer examination of the derivation
of the distortion operator S, equation (4.23), reveals that in effect it assumes
that any streaming motion past the observer induces a dipole in the redshift
overdensity. It follows that the best procedure is to measure the overdensity
in the frame where the streaming motion vanishes, which is the LG frame,
and then to transform to the CMB frame by making a dipole correction to
the overdensity, as previously recommended, equation (4.52).
If the overdensity δs (r) in the CMB frame is constructed according to
the recommended procedure — measure the overdensity in the LG frame
and then correct to the CMB frame by subtracting a dipole streaming term,
equation (4.52) — then the distortion equation (4.22) in the CMB frame
will remain correct even without the condition |v| ≪ r, equation (4.29).
Which strategy is better for dealing with the motion of the LG, to
work entirely in the LG frame as described in §4.3.1, or to make a dipole
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
39
correction and to work in the CMB frame, as proposed in this subsection? It
seems to be largely a matter of judgement or convenience. The difference in
information content is not great. If one likes, the difference can be isolated
into the single mode with the specific form α(r)r̂.v LG /r, equation (4.42), by
making all other modes orthogonal to it (Tegmark et al. 1997). In the case
of an all-sky survey with a uniform flux limit, the mode is a dipole mode.
For a non-all-sky survey with a uniform flux limit, the α(r)r̂.v LG /r mode
is effectively a ‘cut’ dipole mode, and making observed modes orthogonal
to this mode means making them orthogonal to the cut dipole.
Note that the peculiar velocity of the LG in the second strategy is not
used in order to allow a measurement of β from any direct comparison
between peculiar velocity and density fields; rather the LG velocity is used
to introduce a dipole redshift distortion, which combines statistically with
all the other redshift distortions to yield a statistical estimate of β.
4.3.3. Rocket Effect
The fact that the peculiar motion of the observer induces a dipole overdensity in redshift space in the direction of motion leads to an effect called the
rocket effect, first pointed out by Kaiser (1987, §2; Kaiser & Lahav 1988,
p. 366). This dipole needs to be distinguished carefully from the true dipole
anisotropy of the density around the observer, which in the standard gravitational instability picture is responsible for inducing the observer’s peculiar
velocity, equation (4.44) (Strauss et al. 1992b).
Consider for example an observer situated in a perfectly uniform distribution of galaxies, all with zero peculiar velocities. Suppose that the
observer hypothesizes that he is actually moving at some velocity v relative to the background. This motion will induce a spurious dipole in the
direction of motion, which the witless observer may interpret as the dipole
pulling him.
A complementary problem arises if an observer attempts to correct the
dipole around him for the reflex motion induced on the observer by that
dipole. Here there is a tendency to instability at large depths, beyond the
median depth of the survey, where α(r) goes negative (Nusser & Davis
1994).
4.4. REAL AND REDSHIFT SPACE SELECTION FUNCTIONS
The distortion equation (4.22) with the distortion operator S given by (4.23)
s (r)
provides a valid prediction δs (r) of the observed redshift overdensity δobs
provided that the redshift overdensity is defined relative to the real space
selection function n̄(r), as in equation (3.17). In the practical case however,
the selection function is likely to be estimated in redshift space. This sub-
40
A. J. S. HAMILTON
section examines how the real and redshift space selection functions n̄(r)
and n̄s (r) are related for the typical case of a flux-limited redshift survey.
Suppose that the redshift survey includes all galaxies brighter than some
flux limit Flim , and suppose for simplicity that this limit is uniform over the
angular extent of the survey. It is convenient to characterize the luminosity
of a galaxy of flux F and true distance r by the maximum distance rL to
which the galaxy could be moved and still remain above the flux limit:
rL ≡ r
F
Flim
1/2
.
(4.53)
The limiting distance rL of a galaxy is just a measure of its luminosity
L, since L = 4πr 2 F = 4πrL2 Flim . Define φ(rL )d ln rL to be the luminosity
function, the mean number density of galaxies in a logarithmic interval
d ln rL of limiting distances (which is the same, up to a factor, as the mean
number density of galaxies in a logarithmic interval of luminosity, or in an
interval of absolute magnitude). The selection function n̄(r) at (true, not
redshift) depth r in this flux-limited redshift survey is the number density
of galaxies luminous enough to be seen to depth r, which is the luminosity
function integrated over rL > r
n̄(r) =
Z
r
∞
φ(rL ) d ln rL .
(4.54)
All modern methods of measuring the selection function (Binggeli, Sandage & Tammann 1988; Koranyi & Strauss 1997) seek to eliminate the
(otherwise dominant) uncertainty arising from density inhomogeneity by
assuming that the luminosity function φ(rL ) is a universal function, independent of the local density, and estimating the luminosity function by
counting relative numbers of bright and faint galaxies in identical volumes.
If bright and faint galaxies at any point share the same peculiar velocity, as
seems probable in the linear regime, then the measurement of the selection
function in redshift space should remain unbiased by inhomogeneity. A systematic difference between the real and redshift space luminosity functions,
hence selection functions, does however result from the fact that radial peculiar velocities v shift galaxies not only in space, s = r + v, but also in
luminosity, since the apparent limiting distance sL of a galaxy in redshift
space, defined by
F 1/2 srL
,
(4.55)
=
sL ≡ s
Flim
r
is s/r times its true limiting distance rL , equation (4.53).
Hamilton & Culhane (1996) claim that the real and redshift selection
functions agree to linear order, but this is false. What is true is that the expectation values of the real and redshift selection functions, averaged over
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
41
an ensemble of observers, agree to linear order, essentially because the peculiar velocity averaged over an ensemble of observers is zero everywhere,
hv(r)i = 0 (a difference between ensemble-averaged real and redshift selection functions arises at next order, since the ensemble average dispersion
of peculiar velocities is non-zero). In the actual case, however, the peculiar
velocity does not vanish, and the actual real and redshift selections differ
to linear order.
4.4.1. Turner’s Method
As a typical procedure, consider Turner’s (1979) procedure for estimating
the selection function. It can be shown that Turner’s method, when applied
over a grid of depths r, yields the same selection function as that of the
“Stepwise Maximum Likelihood” method of Efstathiou, Ellis & Peterson
(1988), although Turner’s method does not yield uncertainties. Turner’s
procedure is to construct the selection function n̄(r) from
∂N (rL , r) d ln n̄(r)
=
d ln r
N (r, r) ∂ ln rL rL =r
(4.56)
where N (rL , r) is the observed number of galaxies brighter than rL and at
the same time closer than r. In practice, equation (4.56) is solved on a grid
of depths r, in which case the equation becomes, for bins of logarithmic
width ∆ ln r,
N (re∆ ln r , r) − N (r, r)
∆ ln n̄(r)
=
.
(4.57)
∆ ln r
N (r, r)
As pointed out by Strauss, Yahil & Davis (1991), if observed fluxes are
rounded into discrete bins (for example, Zwicky magnitudes are rounded
mostly to 0.1 magnitudes), then the grid in r must be chosen carefully to
avoid a discretization bias. For a logarithmic spacing ∆ ln F of discretized
fluxes, the estimate of the selection function is unbiased if the logarithmic
spacing ∆ ln r of depths is taken to be an integral multiple of ∆ ln(F 1/2 );
the estimate is most biased if ∆ ln r is taken to be half of ∆ ln(F 1/2 ). As
with all such methods, Turner’s procedure leaves the overall normalization
of the selection function undetermined. The normalization must be fixed as
a separate step.
Suppose that Turner’s method (4.56) is applied in redshift space, so
that the redshift space selection function n̄s (s) is estimated from
∂N s (sL , s) d ln n̄s (s)
= s
d ln s
N (s, s) ∂ ln sL sL =s
(4.58)
where N s (sL , s) is the observed number of galaxies brighter than sL and
closer than s in redshift space. How is the redshift space selection function
42
A. J. S. HAMILTON
estimated by (4.58) related to the real space selection function? Let f (rL , r)
denote the number density of galaxies in an interval d ln rL d3 r of luminosity
and position in real space, and similarly let f s (sL , s) denote the number
density of galaxies in an interval d ln sL d3 s in redshift space. Conservation
of galaxies implies
f s (sL , s) d ln sL d3 s = f (rL , r) d ln rL d3 r
(4.59)
with s = r + v and sL = rL s/r, which generalizes equation (4.25). The
relation s = r + v is valid in the CMB frame; in the LG frame, replace
v → v − r̂.v LG . The assumption that the luminosity function φ(rL ) is
a universal function, independent of position, implies that the real space
number density f (rL , r) factorizes to
f (rL , r) = φ(rL )[1 + δ(r)] .
(4.60)
Given this assumption (4.60), a derivation similar to that leading from (4.25)
to (4.30) shows that, to linear order in the overdensity δ(r) and peculiar
velocity v(r), equation (4.59) implies
s
f (rL , r) = φ(rL ) 1 + δ(r) −
αφ (rL )
∂
+
v(r)
∂r
r
(4.61)
where the dimensionless quantity αφ (rL ) ≡ d ln[rL2 φ(rL )]/d ln rL is similar
but not identical to the quantity α(r) defined by equation (4.24). By definition, the number N s (sL , s) of galaxies brighter than sL and closer than
s is
Z sZ Z ∞
f s (s′L , s′ ) d ln s′L d3 s′
(4.62)
N s (sL , s) ≡
0 A sL
where the angular part of the spatial integral is over the solid angle A of
the survey. A few-step calculation using equation (4.61) in equation (4.62)
leads to
∂N s (rL , r)
d ln n̄(rL ) d2 ln n̄(rL ) v
=
−
(4.63)
N s (rL , r) ∂ ln rL
d ln rL
r r
d ln rL2
where n̄(rL ), the real space selection function, is the integral (4.54) of the
luminosity function, and hv/rir is the volume-average of v/r within depth
r over the solid angle A of the survey
v
r
r
3
≡
Ar 3
Z rZ
0 A
v(r ′ ) 3 ′
d r .
r′
(4.64)
Equation (4.63) shows that the basic relation between the real and redshift
space selection functions, when the latter is estimated according to Turner’s
procedure (4.58), is, to linear order in the overdensity and peculiar velocity,
d2 ln n̄(r)
d ln[n̄(r)/n̄s (r)]
=
d ln r
d ln r 2
v
r
r
.
(4.65)
43
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
Integrating equation (4.65) yields
ln
n̄(r)
n̄s (r)
=−
Z
rmax
r
d2 ln n̄(r ′ )
d ln r ′ 2
v
r
r′
dr ′
r′
(4.66)
where the limit rmax of integration is an arbitrary depth which can conveniently be taken to be, say, the maximum depth of the survey. Changing
rmax changes ln[n̄(r)/n̄s (r)] by an integration constant, the arbitrariness of
which reflects the fact that Turner’s method leaves the overall normalization
of the selection function undetermined. Changing the order of integration
transforms equation (4.66) to
n̄(r)
ln
n̄s (r)
=−
Z
0
rmaxZ
a[max(r, r ′ )]
A
v(r ′ ) 3 ′
d r
r′
(4.67)
where the integration is over the volume of the survey, and the function
a(r) is
Z
3 rmax 1 d2 ln n̄(r ′ ) dr ′
a(r) ≡
.
(4.68)
A r
r ′3 d ln r ′ 2 r ′
In practice it would normally be better to estimate the redshift selection function n̄s LG (r) in the LG frame rather than in the CMB frame,
since the derivation of equation (4.61) requires amongst other things that
|v| ≪ r, which is not necessarily satisfied at small depths r, whereas the
corresponding condition |v − r̂.v LG | ≪ r in the LG frame is automatically
satisfied, at least over linear scales. Equations in the LG frame are obtained
by replacing v → v − r̂.v LG everywhere. In the LG frame, equations (4.66)
and (4.67) become
n̄(r)
ln
s
n̄ LG (r)
d2 ln n̄(r ′ )
d ln r ′ 2
v
r̂
dr ′
−
.v LG
= −
r r′
r r′
r′
r
Z rmaxZ
′
[v(r ′ ) − r̂ .v LG ] 3 ′
= −
a[max(r, r ′ )]
d r
(4.69)
r′
0
A
Z
rmax
where hr̂/rir ≡ 3/(Ar 3 ) 0r A (r̂ ′ /r ′ )d3 r ′ is defined to be the volume average
of r̂/r within depth r over the solid angle A of the survey, similarly to the
definition (4.64) of hv/rir . Note that hr̂/rir = 0 in the case of an all-sky
survey.
Just as there were two strategies to deal with the LG motion, described
in §§4.3.1 and 4.3.2, so here there are two general strategies to deal with the
difference between real and redshift selection functions. The two strategies
are described in the next two subsections, §§4.4.2 and 4.4.3.
R R
44
A. J. S. HAMILTON
4.4.2. The Distortion Operator Relative to the Redshift Selection Function
The first strategy is to define the redshift overdensity δss (s) relative to
the selection function n̄s (s) in redshift space, as in equation (3.18), and to
modify the linear redshift distortion operator S accordingly.
It is straightforward to ascertain that the overdensities δss (r) and δs (r)
defined respectively relative to the redshift and real space selection functions, equations (3.18) and (3.17), are related to linear order by
δss (r) = δs (r) + ln[n̄(r)/n̄s (r)] .
(4.70)
Equation (4.67), together with the usual linear expression (4.31) for the
radial peculiar velocity v, shows that, in the case of Turner’s (1979) method
applied to a flux-limited redshift survey, ln[n̄(r)/n̄s (r)] can be written
ln[n̄(r)/n̄s (r)] =
Z
Sn̄ (r, r ′ )δ(r ′ ) d3 r ′
(4.71)
(more compactly, the right hand side of eq. [4.71] is just Sn̄ δ in the notation
of matrices and vectors in Hilbert space, §3.3) where the linear operator Sn̄
is
∂
(4.72)
Sn̄ (r, r ′ ) = β a[max(r, r ′ )]ω(r ′ ) ′ ′ ∇′−2
r ∂r
with ω(r ′ ) ≡ 1 inside, and 0 outside, the volume of the survey.
Thus the linear redshift distortion equation for the redshift overdensity
ss
δ is
δss = Ss δ
(4.73)
where the linear distortion operator Ss is the sum of the linear distortion operator S, equation (4.23), and an extra piece Sn̄ given, for Turner’s
method, by equation (4.72):
Ss = S + Sn̄ .
(4.74)
A complete expression for the distortion operator Ss is
!
αs (r, r ′ ) ∂ ′−2
∂2
∇
Ss (r, r ′ ) = δD (r − r ′ ) 1 + β 2 ∇−2 + β
∂r
r′
∂r ′
(4.75)
where αs (r, r ′ ) is
αs (r, r ′ ) ≡ δD (r − r ′ )α(r) + a[max(r, r ′ )]ω(r ′ )
(4.76)
with α(r) and a(r) given by (4.24) and (4.68), and again ω(r ′ ) ≡ 1 inside,
and 0 outside, the volume of the survey.
45
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
In practice, it makes more sense to apply this strategy in the LG frame
than in the CMB frame, for the reason given in the paragraph containing
equation (4.69). In the LG frame, equations (4.70)–(4.75) carry through,
but superscripted LG appropriately. In the LG frame, the overdensities
δss LG and δs LG are related by
δss LG (r) = δs LG (r) + ln[n̄(r)/n̄s LG (r)] .
(4.77)
In the case of Turner’s method applied Rto a flux-limited survey, equation (4.69) shows that ln[n̄(r)/n̄s LG (r)] = Sn̄ LG (r, r ′ )δ(r ′ ) d3 r ′ where the
operator Sn̄ LG is
Sn̄ LG (r, r ′ ) = β
∂
∂ a[max(r, r ′ )]ω(r ′ )r̂ ′
∇′−2 .
.
−
′
′
r
∂r
∂r ′ r ′ =0
(4.78)
The distortion equation for the redshift overdensity δss LG in the LG frame
is
δss LG = Ss LG δ
(4.79)
where the linear distortion operator Ss LG is the sum of the distortion operator SLG , equation (4.46), and the extra piece Sn̄ LG given, for Turner’s
method, by equation (4.78):
Ss LG = SLG + Sn̄ LG .
(4.80)
A complete expression for the distortion operator Ss LG is
s LG
S
∂2
(r, r ) = δD (r − r ) 1 + β 2 ∇−2
∂r
′
′
+β
!
αs (r, r ′ )r̂ ′
∂
∂ .
−
∇′−2
′
′
r
∂r
∂r ′ r ′ =0
(4.81)
with αs (r, r ′ ) given by equation (4.76). In evaluating αs (r, r ′ ), the selection
function n̄(r) which enters the definitions (4.24) of α(r) and (4.68) of a(r)
can be replaced to linear order by the measured redshift selection function
n̄s LG (r).
Equation (4.81) is an important equation. To recapitulate, it gives the
form of the linear redshift distortion operator Ss LG for the case of a fluxlimited redshift survey in which the redshift space overdensity δss LG (r) is
defined (a) in the frame of reference of the LG, and (b) relative to the
redshift space selection function n̄s LG (r) measured using Turner’s (1979)
method, equation (4.58), again in the LG frame. That is, the distortion
equation (4.79) gives the theoretically predicted form of the overdensity
46
A. J. S. HAMILTON
δss LG (r) in the linear regime, to be compared to the observed redshift
ss LG (r) defined by
overdensity δobs
ss LG
δobs
(r) ≡
ns LG (r) − n̄s LG (r)
n̄s LG (r)
(4.82)
with ns LG (r) the observed galaxy density at redshift position r in the LG
frame, and n̄s LG (r) the selection function measured in redshift space in the
LG frame by Turner’s method (4.58).
The redshift correlation function ξ ss (r12 , r1 , r2 ) of the overdensity δss (r)
in the linear regime is related to the unredshifted correlation function ξ(r12 )
by
ξ ss (r12 , r1 , r2 ) = Ss1 Ss2 ξ(r12 ) .
(4.83)
Similarly the redshift correlation function ξ ss LG (r12 , r1 , r2 ) of the overdensity δss LG (r) in the LG frame is
ξ ss LG (r12 , r1 , r2 ) = Ss1 LG Ss2 LG ξ(r12 ) .
(4.84)
4.4.3. Correcting the Redshift to the Real Space Selection Function
The second strategy is to measure the redshift space selection function
n̄s (r) as before, but then to correct it to the real space selection function
n̄(r).
The correction is given to linear order by equation (4.66), for the case of
a flux-limited redshift survey in which the redshift space selection function
is estimated by Turner’s (1979) method, equation (4.58). Actually it would
normally be preferable to estimate the redshift selection function n̄s LG (r)
in the LG frame, and to correct this to the real selection function using
equation (4.69). More precisely, the correction is
d2 ln n̄s LG (r ′ )
d ln r ′ 2
dr ′
r′
r
r′
r′
(4.85)
which is the same as equation (4.69) except that the redshift selection
function n̄s LG (r ′ ) (the thing you have) replaces the real selection function
n̄(r ′ ) (the thing you want) in the integrand on the right hand side of equation (4.85). The replacement is valid to linear order because n̄s LG (r) and
n̄(r) agree to zeroth order.
The correction (4.85) involves modelling the volume-average hv/rir ,
equation (4.64), of the radial peculiar velocity v divided by depth r, as
a function of depth r in the survey. Note that hv/rir is an average of the
actual v/r, not an ensemble average. One way to do this is to carry out
a complete reconstruction of the unredshifted density and velocity field
ln
n̄(r)
s
n̄ LG (r)
=−
Z
rmax
v
r
−
r̂
r
.v LG
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
47
(Yahil et al. 1991; Fisher et al. 1995b; Webster, Lahav & Fisher 1997).
Complete reconstruction seems extravagant merely for the purpose of estimating hv/rir ; perhaps a simpler approximation could be devised.
It is to be noted that in an all-sky survey hv/rir is negative if galaxies
are on average converging towards the observer, which occurs if the observer
is in an overdense region of the Universe. The LG lies in such an overdense
region, as is typical for galaxy-bound observers, which is an example of
local bias.
In a non-all-sky survey, hv/rir depends in addition on the alignment of
the survey with large scale flows.
However carefully hv/rir is modelled, there is liable to be some uncertainty in it, hence some uncertainty in the correction ln[n̄(r)/n̄s LG (r)],
equation (4.85). The correction ln[n̄(r)/n̄s LG (r)] to the selection function
is essentially a correction to the redshift overdensity, as in equation (4.77).
Measurements of the redshift space overdensity can be immunized against
uncertainty in the radial correction by discarding from the statistical analysis the uncertain radial mode or modes — possibly all radial modes, to
be conservative — and by making all other observed modes orthogonal to
these radial modes (Tegmark et al. 1997). In the case of an all-sky survey
with a uniform flux limit, radial modes are monopole modes about the observer. For a non-all-sky survey with a uniform flux limit, radial modes are
effectively ‘cut’ monopole modes, and observed modes can be immunized
against radial uncertainty by making them orthogonal to the cut monopole
modes.
5. Methods to Measure β
To date, essentially three types of method have been used to measure β
from linear redshift distortions:
1. The ratio of angle-averaged redshift space to real space power spectrum
or correlation function;
2. The ratio of quadrupole to monopole moments of the redshift space
power spectrum;
3. A maximum likelihood approach in which the data are the amplitudes
of (many hundreds of) individual modes, and the parameters are β
and the power spectrum P (k), parametrized in some way.
These methods are discussed in turn below.
48
A. J. S. HAMILTON
5.1. RATIO OF REDSHIFT SPACE TO REAL SPACE ANGLE-AVERAGED
POWER SPECTRA
This method was proposed in Kaiser’s (1987) original paper. It assumes the
plane-parallel, or distant observer, approximation, where structures are sufficiently far away that line-of-sight peculiar velocities are effectively planeparallel, as illustrated in the left panel of Figure 1.
Kaiser’s formula (4.36) predicts that inR the linear regime the angleaveraged redshift power spectrum P s (k) ≡ P s (k)dok /(4π) [which is the
same thing as the monopole redshift power P0s (k) discussed in §5.2] is amplified by a constant factor over the unredshifted power spectrum P (k):
2
1
P s (k)
= 1 + β + β2 .
P (k)
3
5
(5.1)
As β varies between 0 and 1, the amplification factor varies between 1 and
28/15, almost a factor of 2.
Equation (5.1) is valid for any wavenumber k in the linear regime, so
remains valid if the real and redshift space power spectra are first smoothed
over any window W (k) that picks out linear wavenumbers. That is, if
P̃ (k) ≡
Z
∞
W (k)P (k) 4πk2 dk/(2π)3
(5.2)
0
and similarly for P̃ s (k), then the ratio of the smoothed redshift to real
space power spectra is predicted to be
2
P̃ s
1
= 1 + β + β2 .
3
5
P̃
(5.3)
In particular, Rthe ratio of the angle-averaged redshift space correlation function ξ s (r) ≡ ξ s (r)dor /(4π) [which is the monopole redshift correlation
function ξ0s (r)] to its unredshifted counterpart ξ(r) is, at linear separations
r,
2
1
ξ s (r)
= 1 + β + β2 ,
(5.4)
ξ(r)
3
5
which follows from equation (5.3) with the smoothing window in (5.2) taken
R
to be the zeroth spherical Bessel function, W (k) = e−ik.r dok /(4π) =
j0 (kr).
The unredshifted correlation function ξ(r) and/or the unredshifted power
spectrum P (k) can be measured by deprojecting the angular correlation
function of a survey. This deprojection is liable to be quite noisy, unless the
survey is large. Thus the method of inferring β from the ratio of redshift to
49
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
real correlation functions or power spectra is most appropriate if the redshift survey happens to be a subset of a larger angular survey. Examples of
this are the Stromlo-APM survey (Loveday et al. 1996b), which is a 1-in-20
redshift survey of galaxies brighter than bJ = 17.15 in the APM angular
survey, or the QDOT survey (e.g. Saunders et al. 1990; Rowan-Robinson
et al. 1991; Saunders, Rowan-Robinson & Lawrence 1992; Lawrence et al.
1997, in preparation) which is a 1-in-6 redshift survey of galaxies brighter
than 0.6 Jy from the IRAS Point Source Catalog.
5.2. RATIO OF QUADRUPOLE TO MONOPOLE HARMONICS OF THE
POWER SPECTRUM
The idea of decomposing the redshift correlation function into harmonics was proposed by Hamilton (1992), and the connection to the power
spectrum was clarified by Cole, Fisher & Weinberg (1994). Integral expressions for the shape of the redshift correlation function had previously been
given by Kaiser (1987), Lilje & Efstathiou (1989), and McGill (1990). This
method, like method 1, assumes the plane-parallel approximation.
For plane-parallel redshift distortions, the redshift power spectrum can
be written as a sum of even harmonics Pℓs (k)
s
P (k) =
X
Pℓ (µk )Pℓs (k)
,
Pℓs (k)
≡ (2ℓ + 1)
ℓ even
Z
Pℓ (µk )P s (k) dok /4π
(5.5)
where Pℓ (µk ) are Legendre polynomials, and µk ≡ ẑ.k̂ is the cosine of the
angle between the wavevector k and the line of sight z. The odd harmonics vanish by pair exchange symmetry, and non-zero azimuthal harmonics
(corresponding to Yℓm ’s with m 6= 0) vanish by symmetry about the line of
sight.
In the linear regime, Kaiser’s formula (4.36) shows that the redshift
power spectrum reduces to a sum of monopole (ℓ = 0), quadrupole (ℓ = 2),
and hexadecapole (ℓ = 4) harmonics
P s (k) = P0 (µk )P0s (k) + P2 (µk )P2s (k) + P4 (µk )P4s (k)
(5.6)
where the harmonics Pℓs of the redshift space power spectrum are related
to the unredshifted power spectrum P (k) by
1
2
=
1 + β + β 2 P (k)
3
5
4
4
P2s (k) =
β + β 2 P (k)
3
7
8 2
s
P4 (k) =
β P (k) .
35
P0s (k)
(5.7)
50
A. J. S. HAMILTON
Monopole
Quadrupole
Hexadecapole
Figure 6. Shapes of the monopole (ℓ = 0), quadrupole (ℓ = 2), and hexadecapole (ℓ = 4)
harmonics (thick lines), drawn as perturbations of a sphere (thin lines). The quadrupole
has positive amplitude as drawn, as appropriate for the redshift power spectrum. The
factor of iℓ between the power spectrum and the correlation function, equation (5.10),
introduces a minus sign in the quadrupole correlation function, which therefore appears
squashed, opposite to what is drawn.
Equations (5.7) imply in particular that the ratio P2s (k)/P0s (k) of quadrupole to monopole harmonics of the redshift power spectrum in the linear
regime is
4
4 2
P2s (k)
3β + 7β
=
(5.8)
P0s (k)
1 + 32 β + 15 β 2
which therefore provides a means of measuring β. Equations (5.7) predict
that the hexadecapole harmonic P4s (k) should be quite small, <
∼ 0.1 of the
monopole and quadrupole harmonics for β ≤ 1, and it also proves to be
noisier, especially at the largest scales, so in practice the quadrupole-tomonopole ratio has been the statistic of choice for many authors.
The harmonics ξℓs (r) of the redshift correlation function are defined
similarly to those (5.5) of the power spectrum
s
ξ (r) =
X
Pℓ (µr )ξℓs (r)
,
ξℓs (r)
≡ (2ℓ + 1)
ℓ even
Z
Pℓ (µr )ξ s (r) dor /(4π)
Z
∞
(5.9)
where µr ≡ ẑ.r̂ is the cosine of the angle between the separation vector r
and the line of sight z. The harmonics Pℓs (k) of the redshift power spectrum
are related to the harmonics ξℓs (r) of the redshift correlation function by
Pℓs (k) = iℓ 4π
Z
∞
0
jℓ (kr)ξℓs (r) r 2 dr , ξℓs (r) = i−ℓ 4π
0
jℓ (kr)Pℓs (k) k2 dk/(2π)3
(5.10)
where jℓ (kr) are spherical Bessel functions. For the quadrupole harmonic,
ℓ = 2, the iℓ factor in equation (5.10) introduces a negative sign between the
power spectrum and the correlation function. Thus the large scale squashing effect of the redshift correlation function, a negative quadrupole, cor-
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
51
responds to a stretching of the redshift power spectrum along the line of
sight, a positive quadrupole (Cole, Fisher & Weinberg 1994, Fig. 1).
5.2.1. Smoothed Harmonics of the Redshift Power Spectrum
In any finite survey, it is necessary to measure the power spectrum at finite
resolution, given roughly by the inverse scale size of the survey. Consider
then the harmonics of the redshift power spectrum smoothed over some
window W (k) (the following equation generalizes eq. [5.2])
P̃ℓs ≡
Z
∞
0
W (k)Pℓs (k) 4πk2 dk/(2π)3 .
(5.11)
As long as the window W (k) picks out wavenumbers in the linear regime,
the quadrupole-to-monopole ratio of the smoothed harmonics P̃ℓ will also
satisfy the relation (5.8),
4
4 2
P̃2s
3β + 7β
=
.
1 + 23 β + 15 β 2
P̃0s
(5.12)
The relation (5.10) between the harmonics of the power spectrum and the
correlation function means that the smoothed harmonics P̃ℓs of the power
spectrum, equation (5.11), can also be written as smoothed harmonics of
the correlation function:
P̃ℓs =
∞
Z
0
Wℓ (r)ξℓs (r) 4πr 2 dr
(5.13)
where the real space smoothing window Wℓ (r) is related to the Fourier
window W (k) by
Wℓ (r) = iℓ 4π
Z
0
∞
jℓ (kr)W (k) k2 dk/(2π)3 .
(5.14)
The point of equation (5.13) is that it shows how smoothed redshift power
spectra P̃ℓs can be measured from quantities in real (redshift) space, which
is where the data lie.
5.2.2. Smoothing Windows
Childers (1978, p. 1) terms the business of choosing smoothing windows
W (k) “window carpentry”. One possibility, proposed by Hamilton (1995)
and used in §6 below, is to use smoothing windows that are power laws
2
times a Gaussian, W (k) ∼ kn e−k with n an even integer, suitably scaled
and normalized. These windows W (k) have the desirable properties that:
◦ they are everywhere positive, so preserving the intrinsic positivity of
the power spectrum;
52
A. J. S. HAMILTON
◦ they vanish at zero wavenumber, W (k) = 0 at k = 0, provided that
n ≥ 2, so immunizing the measurement of power against uncertainty in
the mean density (which makes a delta-function contribution to power
at zero wavenumber);
◦ they are analytically convenient;
◦ they yield Gaussian convergence as a function of pair separation r
in the corresponding real space windows Wℓ (r), equation (5.14), for
harmonics ℓ ≤ n, provided that n is chosen to be an even integer.
Suitably scaled, and normalized so
windows are
R
W (k)d3 k/(2π)3 = 1, these smoothing
2
W (k)
2e−q q n+2 dq
d3 k
,
≡
(2π)3
Γ[(n+3)/2]
q≡
αk
.
k̃
(5.15)
The wavenumber k̃ is an ‘effective’ wavenumber, the constant α being chosen so that W (k) peaks at approximately k ≈ k̃. In Hamilton (1995) and §6,
the constant α is chosen so that the smoothed monopole power at wavenumber k̃ is equal to the unsmoothed monopole power at the same wavenumber,
P̃0s (k̃) = P0s (k̃), for the particular case where the power spectrum is a power
law of index −1.5, that is, for P0s (k) ∝ k−1.5 . For the case n = 2 in the window (5.15), as used in Figure 7, this fixes α = 1.279. The harmonics of the
power spectrum smoothed over the window (5.15) are, according to equation (5.13), equal to the harmonics of the correlation function smoothed
over corresponding windows Wℓ (r) given by equation (5.14):
Wℓ (r) =
iℓ [(n−ℓ)/2]! ℓ −s2 ℓ+(1/2) 2
s e L(n−ℓ)/2 (s ) ,
(3/2)(n/2)
s≡
k̃r
2α
(5.16)
(note that W0 (0) = 1) where Lλν are Laguerre polynomials (Abramowitz &
Stegun 1964) and (3/2)(n/2) = Γ[(n+3)/2]/Γ(3/2) is a Pochhammer sym2
bol. The smoothing windows (5.16) happen to be e−s /2 times the radial
wavefunctions of a 3-dimensional simple harmonic oscillator at energy level
n and angular momentum ℓ (Landau & Lifshitz 1958, §33 Problem 4). The
quantization condition that the index (n − ℓ)/2 be a non-negative integer
ensures Gaussian convergence at large separations r. Despite the forbidding appearance, the smoothing windows Wℓ (r) are just polynomials times
a Gaussian, with a rapid stable recurrence relation available to evaluate the
polynomials.
It is noteworthy that in order to measure the ℓ’th harmonic with one
of the windows (5.15), it is necessary to choose n ≥ ℓ, so that the window
must go to zero at least as fast as W (k) ∼ kℓ as k → 0.
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
53
5.3. MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD
Maximum likelihood (ML) techniques offer an optimal way to estimate β
and its uncertainty from redshift distortions. The technique is not only
optimal, yielding both the most probable answer along with a complete
probability distribution of answers, for a given prior, but is flexible enough
to admit complications, such as the radial (as opposed to plane-parallel)
character of redshift distortions, which can be difficult to deal with by direct
methods.
The ML technique was first applied to measure β from linear redshift
distortions by Fisher, Scharf & Lahav (1994), and a more thorough implementation was carried through by Heavens & Taylor (1995) and then by
Ballinger, Heavens & Taylor (1995).
Likelihood techniques, applied according to Bayesian precepts (Loredo
1990), require a prior, that is, a precise statement of prior assumptions,
including the range of models to be considered, and the prior probability
distributions of the parameters to be measured. In the usual case, the prior
probability of the parameters is taken to be uniform, in which case the
posterior probability, the probability distribution of the parameters given
the observed data (which is what you want), is proportional to the likelihood
function, which is the probability of the observed data given the parameters
(which is what theory tells you).
When estimating β from linear redshift distortions, the prior is liable
to include such assumptions as that the Universe is statistically homogeneous and isotropic, that the distribution of overdensity on linear scales is
a multivariate Gaussian, that the power spectrum takes such and such a
parametrized form (e.g. Cold Dark Matter (CDM) or one of its cousins),
that observations introduce such and such additional sources of uncertainty
(notably Poisson sampling noise), that linear redshift distortions conform
to the standard model described in §4, and that all values of β are a priori
equally likely (which is called a uniform prior on the parameter β).
At first sight the need to state a prior seems a disadvantage compared
to traditional direct approaches (where for example one measures β from
some ratio of power spectra, and one measures power spectra by, well,
by measuring power spectra). With second sight however, one realizes the
advantages of the ML procedure:
• Being forced to state one’s prior assumptions explicitly is a virtue, not
a drawback;
• If changing your prior (within plausible limits) makes much difference
to the values of the quantities you are trying to estimate, then you are
not learning much from the data;
54
A. J. S. HAMILTON
• The mathematical formalism is quite general, specifying the best way
to proceed even in highly complicated situations.
This having been said, it is true that the ML formalism will happily
provide answers for parameters even if the prior is completely wrong. Thus
the prior should, correctly, always be tested for consistency with the data
(a step that to date has generally not been taken).
If the real overdensity δ forms a multivariate Gaussian field, as may
well be true on linear scales in reality, then the observed linear redshift
overdensity δ sobs is also predicted to be a multivariate Gaussian (any linear
combination of a Gaussian field is a Gaussian field), and the likelihood
function L is Gaussian
1
1
Cs−1 δ sobs
L ∝ s 1/2 exp − δ s†
2 obs
|C |
(5.17)
where Cs ≡ hδ s δ s† i is the expectation value of the survey covariance matrix, and |Cs | and Cs−1 are its determinant and inverse. The δ sobs in the
likelihood (5.17) is the observed vector of overdensities, while the covariance
matrix Cs is the prior. The likelihood function (5.17) gives the probability
of the observed data, δ sobs , given the prior, Cs . With a uniform prior on the
parameters of the covariance matrix Cs , the likelihood function becomes
(up to a normalization factor) the probability of the parameters given the
data.
In general, the prior covariance Cs is a combination of signal plus noise
terms. In the simplest case, one supposes that the only source of noise in
a redshift survey of galaxies is Poisson sampling noise (§§3.1.2, 3.2.2). The
survey covariance Cs is then a sum of cosmic and Poisson sampling terms
(the following equation is a repeat of eq. [3.28])
s
Cij
= ξ s (r i , r j ) + δD (r i − rj )[n̄(r i )]−1
(5.18)
where ξ s (r i , r j ) is the redshift space correlation function, and δD (r i − r j )
is a Dirac delta function. For fluctuations in the linear regime, the redshift
correlation function ξ s (r i , r j ) is predicted to depend on the linear distortion parameter β and the unredshifted correlation function ξ(r) (or equivalently the unredshifted power spectrum P (k), eq. [3.6]) in accordance with
equation (4.32). The parameters to be measured are then the distortion parameter β, and the parameters of some parametrization of the unredshifted
power spectrum P (k).
s (r), equation (3.17),
Actually, the ‘observed’ redshift overdensity δobs
depends not only on the observed galaxy density ns (r) in redshift space,
but also on the selection function n̄(r), which is itself estimated from the
survey. The shape of the selection function (or the parameters of some
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
55
parametrization thereof) would normally be measured as a separate operation, since that measurement typically involves additional assumptions
about the universality of the luminosity function (see §4.4). This leaves the
overall normalization of the selection function as an extra parameter to be
measured from the likelihood function (5.17). In principle, uncertainty in
the measurement of the shape of the selection function should be allowed
for by marginalizing over it, that is, by integrating the likelihood function
over the probability distribution of the parameters of the shape of the selection function. In practice, the shape of the selection function is normally
so accurately measured, compared to other uncertainties, that it can be
treated as a fixed, known quantity in the likelihood analysis.
In order to proceed numerically, it is necessary to pixelize the data in
some fashion, so that the covariance matrix Cij becomes a finite matrix.
In principle, the choice of pixelization is irrelevant, if the pixels are fine
and many enough to represent the survey data accurately. In practice, the
matrix Cij needs to be of tractable size, and some cunning is needed to pick
a pixelization that is small but nevertheless contains virtually all the information about the parameters to be measured (Tegmark, Taylor & Heavens
1996; Tegmark et al. 1997). Fisher, Scharf & Lahav (1994) chose the pixels
to be spherical harmonics to ℓ ≤ 10 on the sky, with 4 Gaussian pixels in the
radial direction. Heavens & Taylor (1995) and Ballinger, Heavens & Taylor
(1995) chose a basis of spherical waves, that is, spherical harmonics on the
sky, with (weighted) spherical Bessel functions in the radial direction.
Clearly the ML technique, or methods essentially equivalent to it, is the
method of choice for measuring redshift distortions, certainly on the largest
scales where a small number of pixels contains all relevant information, perhaps also on smaller scales if clever compression techniques can be applied
(Vogeley & Szalay 1996; Tegmark, Taylor & Heavens 1996; Tegmark et
al. 1997). Undoubtedly there will be further development of this powerful
approach in the future.
One mysterious aspect of ML results published to date is that they yield
estimates of β that appear to be systematically larger than other methods
(see Table 8.1). One possible reason for the difference is the fact that the
plane-parallel approximation underestimates β. However, authors who use
the plane-parallel approximation have generally confined their measurements to opening angles no larger than 50◦ , at which point the N -body
simulations of Cole, Fisher & Weinberg (1994, Fig. 8) indicate that the
plane-parallel approximation underestimates β by only 5%. Another possibility, suggested by Ballinger, Heavens & Taylor (1995), is that direct methods unfairly penalize larger values of β, since larger values of β predict a
larger variance in the power spectrum, which is not taken into consideration
by direct methods.
56
A. J. S. HAMILTON
The resolution of this mystery remains unclear.
6. Example of Measuring β from Linear Redshift Distortions
It is helpful to present an example of the measurement of β from linear
redshift distortions, which is intended not only to illustrate how things
work out in practice, but also (a) to bring out the difference between IRAS
and optically selected galaxies when they are analysed with (essentially) the
same procedure, and (b) to demonstrate the importance of nonlinearities
(fingers-of-god).
The results are given first, in §6.1, and then §6.2 provides some details
of the analysis.
6.1. RESULTS
Figure 7 shows the ratio P̃2s (k̃)/P̃0s (k̃) of smoothed quadrupole to smoothed
monopole power measured as a function of effective wavenumber k̃ in the
IRAS QDOT + 1.2 Jy survey and the Stromlo-APM survey. These are the
same surveys whose redshift correlation functions are plotted in Figure 3.
The result for the QDOT + 1.2 Jy survey is from Hamilton (1995), who
gives additional details of the analysis. The Stromlo-APM result, new to
this review, follows essentially the same analysis.
On linear scales (to the right of the graphs in Figure 7) the quadrupoleto-monopole ratio is expected to go over to a constant. While there is some
indication, more particularly in the IRAS surveys, that the ratio is indeed
asymptoting to a constant, it is evident that nonlinearities have some effect even at scales as large as a half-wavelength10 of π/k̃ ≈ 40h−1 Mpc.
One should probably not believe the quadrupole-to-monopole ratio for
−1
π/k̃ >
∼ 50h Mpc, where the uncertainties are becoming large. On small
scales the nonlinear finger-of-god effect lowers the quadrupole-to-monopole
ratio, so that the quadrupole power is negative below a half-wavelength of
π/k̃ ≈ 5h−1 Mpc in the QDOT + 1.2 Jy survey, and below π/k̃ ≈ 8h−1 Mpc
in the Stromlo-APM survey.
For the QDOT + 1.2 Jy survey, nonlinear effects appear to be adequately described by a model in which the linear distortion is modulated
by a random exponentially distributed pairwise velocity dispersion (Fisher
et al. 1994b) (see §7.2). A least squares fit to the quadrupole-to-monopole
ratio over half-wavelengths 5–44 h−1 Mpc gives a one-dimensional pairwise
velocity dispersion of 322 km s−1 . Although this method of measuring the
10
The uncertainty principle ensures that the correspondence between wavenumber and
separation is inevitably uncertain. Empirically however, I find that a half-wavelength π/k
typically gives a better estimate of the physical scale of separation than for example a
full wavelength 2π/k or an inverse wavenumber 1/k.
57
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
5
1.4
1.2
1.0
.8
.6
P˜2s /P˜0s
.4
.2
.0
−. 2
−. 4
Half-wavelength π/k˜ (h−1Mpc)
20
50
5
10
20
10
QDOT + 1.2 Jy
β = 0.685
σ = 322 km s−1
50
10 0
1. 5
2
1
1
Stromlo-APM
Fogs compressed
β
β = 0.30
.5
0
1
.5
.2
.1
.0 5 1
.5
.2
Wavenumber k˜ (h Mpc−1)
.1
Ω0
.5
.2
0
.05
Figure 7. Ratio P̃2s (k̃)/P̃0s (k̃) of smoothed quadrupole to smoothed monopole power
as a function of effective wavenumber k̃ in: (left) the merged IRAS QDOT plus 1.2 Jy
survey; and (right) the Stromlo-APM survey. These are the same surveys whose redshift correlation functions are illustrated in Figure 3. For the QDOT + 1.2 Jy sample
in the left panel, the dashed line is a fit to a model in which the linear redshift distortion is modulated by a random exponentially distributed pairwise velocity dispersion
(§7.2). For the Stromlo-APM survey in the right panel, the upper thick line shows the
quadrupole-to-monopole ratio which results when fingers-of-god are compressed, and the
dashed line is a straight line fit to this line. The scales on the right show the value of
β corresponding to the linear ratio P̃2s /P̃0s , equation (5.12), and the inferred value of
Ω0 , equation (1.5), in the absence of bias, b = 1. Beware that the smoothing window
W (k) ∝ k2 exp[−(1.279k/k̃)2 ], equation (5.15), is broad, so the points are correlated;
roughly every third error bar is uncorrelated. The horizontal and slanted bars on the
(1σ) errors come from two separate ways of measuring uncertainties.
velocity dispersion is crude compared to Fisher et al.’s (1994b) procedure,
the number is nonetheless in good agreement with Fisher et al.’s scaledependent estimate (§8.2.2). As reported by Hamilton (1995), the best fitting value of the linear redshift distortion parameter in the QDOT + 1.2 Jy
survey is β = 0.69+0.21
−0.19 (1σ).
For the Stromlo-APM survey, the nonlinear effects appear large enough
that simple model-fitting to the quadrupole-to-monopole ratio seems a hazardous procedure. Certainly there would be a large covariance between β
and the velocity dispersion, so that neither would be well measured. One
alternative procedure is to deal with nonlinearities at a more fundamental
level, by identifying individual fingers-of-god in the survey, and compressing them (Gramann, Cen & Gott 1994). Fingers can be identified using a
friends-of-friends algorithm with a window elongated in the radial direction
(e.g. Ramella, Geller & Huchra 1989). Figure 7 shows the quadrupole-to-
58
A. J. S. HAMILTON
monopole ratio in the Stromlo-APM survey that results from compressing
fingers-of-god whose overdensities exceeded 10 when measured through elliptical windows 10 times longer in the radial than transverse direction
(so the overdensity of the compressed fingers exceeded 10 × 10 = 100; to
avoid spurious fingers in distant, sparsely sampled regions of the survey,
the transverse link length was also limited to less than 5 h−1 Mpc). The
result is encouraging in two ways: first, that the quadrupole-to-monopole
ratio is flattened almost to a constant on all scales (at least until the un−1
certainties go out of control at π/k̃ >
∼ 50 h Mpc); and second, that the
−1
ratio is hardly changed at half-wavelengths π/k̃ >
∼ 40 h Mpc, suggesting
that the ratio is close to linear at these scales. I choose to quote the value
−1
β = 0.30+0.17
−0.15 (1σ) measured at a half-wavelength of π/k̃ = 20 h Mpc.
Even though the statistical uncertainty is smaller at shorter wavelengths,
the systematic uncertainty associated with compressing the fingers-of-god
presumably becomes larger.
That β is smaller for optical than IRAS galaxies is consistent with
the standard interpretation in which β ≈ Ω0.6
0 /b, and optical galaxies are
positively biased relative to IRAS galaxies. The values of β measured here
indicate boptical /bIRAS ∼ 2.3 with an uncertainty of a factor of 2 or 3.
6.2. ANALYSIS
The smoothing window used in Figure 7 is the power law times Gaussian
window W (k) ∝ k2 exp[−(1.279k/k̃)2 ] of equation (5.15), with index n = 2,
the smallest n that allows the quadrupole to be measured. This choice of n
yields the broadest smoothing window of the form (5.15), so the errors in
the ratio P̃2s (k̃)/P̃0s (k̃) of smoothed power spectrum harmonics are smallest
for this n, although the results at different k̃ are also then most correlated.
A feature of this analysis is that, although it is the power spectrum
that is being measured, all the calculations are done in real (redshift) space
rather than in Fourier space. In measuring redshift distortions, it is important to disentangle the true distortion from the artificial distortion introduced by a non-uniform survey window. In real (redshift) space, the
observed galaxy density is the product of the true density and the selection
function. In Fourier (redshift) space, this product becomes a convolution.
Thus the natural place to ‘deconvolve’ observations from the selection function is real space, where deconvolution reduces to division, and where the
observations exist in the first place. The deconvolution procedure is ‘exact’,
stable in practice, and admits a near minimum variance pair weighting.
Specifically, the smoothed harmonics P̃ℓs (k̃) of the redshift power spectrum are computed, in accordance with equations (5.13) and (5.9), by taking a suitably weighted sum over galaxy pairs of Wℓ (r), equation (5.16) for
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
59
n = 2, times Pℓ (µr ), the ℓ’th Legendre polynomial:
P̃ℓs
= (2ℓ + 1)
Z
Wℓ (r)Pℓ (µr )ξ s (r, µr ) d3 r
(6.1)
in which the redshift correlation function ξ s (r, µr ) at separation r and
cosine angle µr = ẑ.r̂ to the line of sight z is estimated by Hamilton’s
(1993b) estimator
hDDihRRi
−1
(6.2)
ξ s (r, µr ) =
hDRi2
where, following the conventional notation of the literature, D signifies data,
and R signifies random background points, (although in practice all the
background integrals here were done as integrals, not as Monte-Carlo integrals), and the angle brackets h i represent near-minimum-variance weighted
(Hamilton 1993b, eqs. [60] & [61]) averages over pairs at separation r and
µr . The line of sight z is defined separately for each pair as the angular
bisector of the pair, and to ensure the validity of the plane-parallel approximation, only pairs closer than 50◦ on the sky are retained. Poisson sampling
noise is removed by excluding self-pairs (pairs consisting of a galaxy and
itself).
Uncertainties in the ratio P̃2s (k̃)/P̃0s (k̃) plotted in Figure 7 were estimated by two distinct methods, distinguished in Figure 7 by horizontal
and tilted bars on the errors. Both methods take account of the correlated
character of the galaxy distribution.
The first method (horizontal bars) is described and justified in detail by
Hamilton (1993b, §4). The procedure is to subdivide the survey into a few
hundred volume elements, measure the fluctuation in the power attributable
to each volume element, and form a variance by adding up the covariances of
the fluctuations between the volume elements. However, there is an integral
constraint that implies that the sum of all covariances between all volume
elements is exactly zero, so it is necessary to truncate the sum at some point.
The procedure adopted is to order the covariances in order of increasing
distance between each pair of volume elements, and to take the variance
to be the maximum value of the cumulative covariance. The advantage of
this method is that it makes minimal assumptions about the origin and
nature of the errors. The main defect of the method is that it necessarily
underestimates the variance on scales approaching the scale of the survey.
The second method (tilted bars), inspired by Feldman, Kaiser & Peacock
(1994), is to take the Poisson (i.e. self-pair) variance of pairs ij weighted by
[1 + n̄s (r i )P̃0s (k̃)][1 + n̄s (r j )P̃0s (k̃)]. Properly, this method is valid only for
Gaussian fluctuations, and at wavelengths that are less than some fraction
of the scale of the survey; moreover this estimate fails to take into account
the fact that the covariance of the redshift power spectrum P s (k) is different
60
A. J. S. HAMILTON
in different directions of the wavevector k. However, the estimate is a useful
check on the reliability of the uncertainties computed by the first method.
The method may be expected to overestimate the variance somewhat on
scales approaching the scale of the survey, and Figure 7 shows that it clearly
underestimates the uncertainties in the nonlinear regime, where fluctuations
are non-Gaussian.
7. Translinear Regime
Figure 7 indicates that nonlinearities affect the redshift power spectrum
even at half-wavelengths as large as π/k ≈ 40h−1 Mpc (although one should
bear in mind that the influence of nonlinearity may be exaggerated in Fig. 7
because of the broad smoothing window) (see also Bromley, Warren &
Zurek 1997). Studies of the ratio of redshift to real space power spectra
(Fisher et al. 1993; Brainerd et al. 1996; see also: Suto & Suginohara 1991;
Bahcall, Cen & Gramann 1993; Gramann, Cen & Bahcall 1993; Brainerd
& Villumsen 1993, 1994) lead to the same conclusion, that nonlinearity can
affect the redshift power spectrum even at quite large scales. Moreover,
there is good reason to push to smaller scales, to improve the statistics.
Thus a good understanding of nonlinearities would appear essential to a
reliable measurement of the linear distortion parameter β. With such an
understanding, it might even become possible to break the degeneracy in
β ≈ Ω0.6
0 /b between the cosmological density Ω0 and bias b.
7.1. LINEAR OR NONLINEAR?
Before going any further, it is worth emphasizing that redshift distortions
are more linear than they look.
This can be seen from Figure 2 back at the beginning of this review.
For example, a region that is just turning around in real space, a mildly
nonlinear condition, appears to be collapsed to a sheet in redshift space.
The edge of the sheet forms a caustic, a line of infinite density, a thoroughly
nonlinear condition (note that only the boundary of the collapsed sheet
appears at infinite density; the complete, infinite density, caustic surface of
a collapsing overdensity is the envelope of the finger-of-god in Figure 1).
This suggests that theories that go a step beyond the linear regime, for
example the Zel’dovich approximation (§7.3), or perturbation theory (e.g.
Scoccimarro & Frieman 1996; Hivon et al. 1995), may prove quite successful
in modelling redshift distortions in the translinear regime.
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
61
7.2. RANDOM ISOTROPIC PAIRWISE VELOCITY DISPERSION
The most common approach to nonlinearity has been phenomenological
rather than based on any rigorous theory. The approach has been to suppose that the nonlinear redshift correlation function ξ s is the result of convolving the linear redshift correlation function ξLs with the line-of-sight
component of a random isotropic pairwise velocity distribution f (v). In the
plane-parallel approximation, which should normally be adequate
for small,
R∞
f (v)dv = 1)
nonlinear scales, this model gives (with f (v) normalized to −∞
ξ s (r// , r⊥ ) =
Z
∞
−∞
ξLs (r// − v, r⊥ )f (v)dv .
(7.1)
Note that this model does not require that the individual galaxies of a pair
should separately have random isotropic velocity distributions, although
some authors have found it convenient also to assume the latter (e.g. Peacock & Dodds 1994, to allow them to consider cross-correlations between
different populations; or Heavens & Taylor 1995, to allow them to deal
with radial rather than plane-parallel redshift distortions). Convolution in
real space becomes multiplication in Fourier space, so the redshift power
spectrum in this model is the product of the linear redshift power spectrum PLs (k) = (1 + βµ2k )2 P (k) with the line-of-sight Fourier transform
R∞
f (v)eik// v dv (note k// = kµk ) of the velocity distribution:
fˆ(k// ) = −∞
P s (k) = fˆ(kµk )PLs (k) = fˆ(kµk )(1 + βµ2k )2 P (k) .
(7.2)
Those authors who have invoked this model have generally adopted
either a Gaussian velocity distribution (Peacock & Dodds 1994; Heavens
& Taylor 1995; Tadros & Efstathiou 1996), for which f (v) = [(2π)1/2 σ]−1
exp[−(v/σ)2 /2] and
h
i
(7.3)
.
(7.4)
fˆ(kµk ) = exp −(σkµk )2 /2 ;
or else an exponential pairwise velocity distribution (Fisher et al. 1994b;
Hamilton 1995; Ballinger, Peacock & Heavens 1996; Peacock 1997; Bromley, Warren & Zurek 1997; Ratcliffe et al. 1997; Cole, Fisher & Weinberg
1995 use an exponential single-particle distribution, equivalent to a pairwise distribution that is the convolution of two exponentials), for which
f (v) = (21/2 σ)−1 exp(−21/2 |v|/σ) and
fˆ(kµk ) =
1
1+
1
2
2 (σkµk )
The velocity dispersions σ above are, after the convention established by
Peebles (1976, 1980 eq. [76.14]) and Davis & Peebles (1983), 1-dimensional
62
A. J. S. HAMILTON
pairwise velocity dispersions, which are 21/2 larger than a random 1-dimensional single-point (galaxy) dispersion, and 31/2 smaller than a 3-dimensional pairwise dispersion.
The exponential pairwise velocity distribution was first proposed as a fit
to observations by Peebles (1976), and has held up as a good approximation
both in observations (Davis & Peebles 1983, CfA1; Fisher et al. 1994b,
1.2 Jy survey; Marzke et al. 1995, CfA2 + SSRS2; Lin 1995, LCRS), and
in N -body experiments (Fisher et al. 1994b, Fig. 5; Zurek et al. 1994,
Fig. 7), although the latter reveal appreciable skewness in the distribution
of pairwise infall velocities.
7.3. ZEL’DOVICH APPROXIMATION
The Zel’dovich approximation (e.g. Hui & Bertschinger 1996) is essentially
linear theory expressed in Lagrangian space. In linear theory, particles
(galaxies) move in straight lines from their initial comoving positions r i ,
with comoving displacements ∆r = D(t)∆r L growing in proportion to the
linear growth factor D(t)
r(t) = r i + D(t)∆r L (r i )
(7.5)
where ∆r L = −∇∇−2 δL is the linear displacement field, with δL the linear
overdensity, evaluated at some suitably early epoch. The Zel’dovich approximation supposes that the linear result (7.5) remains true also at nonlinear
epochs. By construction, the Zel’dovich approximation satisfies the continuity equation, but it fails to satisfy the Euler equation beyond the linear
regime.
Redshift distortions in the Zel’dovich approximation have been studied
by Fisher & Nusser (1996), Taylor & Hamilton (1996), and Hatton & Cole
(1997). All three sets of authors tested the predictions of the Zel’dovich approximations against N -body simulations, and all three adopted the planeparallel approximation and chose the ratio of quadrupole to monopole harmonics of the redshift power spectrum as the test statistic. Fisher & Nusser
and Hatton & Cole examined N -body simulations with CDM-like power
spectra, while Taylor & Hamilton examined simulations with power law
power spectra, P (k) ∝ kn with n = −1, −1.5, and −2.
The conclusions can be summarized as follows. The quadrupole-tomonopole ratio P2s (k)/P0s (k) as a function of k can be characterized by
a shape, an overall amplitude, and an overall scale k0 that is conveniently
taken to be the zero-crossing of the quadrupole power, P2s (k0 ) = 0. Then:
• The shape of the quadrupole-to-monopole ratio depends on the shape
of the power spectrum, but is insensitive to the redshift distortion pa-
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
63
rameter β. This shape is accurately predicted by the Zel’dovich approximation at least down to the zero-crossing of the quadrupole, k <
∼ k0 .
• The overall amplitude of the quadrupole-to-monopole ratio depends
on the linear redshift distortion parameter β according to the usual
linear formula (5.8).
• The zero-crossing scale k0 of the quadrupole is not reliably predicted
by the Zel’dovich approximation.
Actually, Fisher & Nusser argued that the shape of the quadrupole-tomonopole ratio is a universal function that is insensitive to the shape of
the power spectrum. Within the range of CDM-like power spectra this is
probably a reasonable approximation. However, the investigations of Taylor
& Hamilton showed that if a broader range of power spectra is considered,
then there is a dependence on the shape of the power spectrum which,
according to the Zel’dovich approximation, becomes marked as the spectral
index n → −3. There is general agreement that the shape of the quadrupoleto-monopole ratio is insensitive to β, the latter serving simply to set the
overall normalization of the ratio.
The third conclusion, that the Zel’dovich approximation does not predict the zero-crossing of the quadrupole power reliably, is based mainly on
the results of Taylor & Hamilton, but the conclusion seems to be consistent with the results graphed by Hatton & Cole (Fisher & Nusser offer no
information on this point). It is not entirely clear what is responsible for
the discrepancy in the zero-crossing.
Fisher & Nusser and Taylor & Hamilton both interpreted the agreement between the predicted Zel’dovich and measured N -body shape of the
quadrupole-to-monopole ratio as suggesting that the departure of this ratio
from a constant value in the translinear regime is caused not by random
velocities in nonlinear virialized fingers-of-god, but rather by coherent infall towards collapsing clusters. This is encouraging if true, because it lends
hope that redshift distortions can be modelled accurately with more rigorous theoretical treatments in the translinear regime.
7.4. FUTURE WORK
The shortcomings of modelling nonlinearity in redshift distortions either
with random pairwise velocities, or with the Zel’dovich approximation, have
been emphasized by Hatton & Cole (1997). It is clear that a more thorough
and rigorous treatment of redshift distortions in the translinear regime, for
example using perturbation theory (e.g. Scoccimarro & Frieman 1996), is
needed.
As usual, bias complicates the problem. One clear bias is that highly
nonlinear fingers-of-god are more prominent in optical and elliptical pop-
64
A. J. S. HAMILTON
ulations than in IRAS and spiral populations (Fig. 3; Guzzo et al. 1997).
Long fingers in rich clusters appear stretched to large separations in redshift space, contaminating the linear and translinear regime. Perhaps this
problem can be side-stepped by identifying and compressing prominent
fingers (§6.1; Gramann, Cen & Gott 1994). Or perhaps estimators can be
constructed that are somehow orthogonal11 to the nonlinear fingers, as suggested by Bromley, Warren & Zurek (1997; these authors claimed to do just
this, but actually their estimator, based on eq. [8.24] in §8.2.3 below, merely
corrects for nonlinearity, and is not orthogonal to it).
8. Measurements of β from Linear Redshift Distortions
8.1. COMPILATION
Table 8.1 lists measurements of the distortion parameter β from redshift
distortions in the linear regime. The table is intended to be complete up to
the first half of 1997. Compare this compilation to that of Strauss & Willick
(1995, Table 3, p. 412). Note that Table 8.1 does not include measurements of β from direct measurements of peculiar velocities, which Strauss
& Willick do include.
The Table is subdivided into the three principal methods described §5.
However, precise procedures used by different authors differ in many respects, and the threefold categorization is not as clean as the headings
might suggest. Comments on the individual measurements are given in the
next subsection, §8.2.
The average and standard deviation of values listed in Table 8.1 is
βoptical = 0.52 ± 0.26 for optical galaxies, and βIRAS = 0.77 ± 0.22 for
IRAS selected galaxies (the quoted uncertainty is the deviation of a single measurement; the lower limit from Taylor & Hamilton was omitted).
In averaging the numbers, I felt it was better to assign equal weight to
all measurements, rather than to rely either on the authors’ quoted uncertainties or on my own judgement of their quality. Of course the data
sets — especially the IRAS data — are not all independent of each other,
so the standard deviation reflects differences in methods as much as anything else. All the same, the dispersion of the measurements turns out to
be about the same as the uncertainties that people quote, so is perhaps
not unreasonable. If the difference in optical and IRAS β’s is attributed
to bias, it implies a relative bias of boptical /bIRAS ≈ 1.5, consistent with
the ratio boptical /bIRAS ≈ 1.3 measured from the square root of the ratio
of their power spectra (Peacock & Dodds 1994; Peacock 1997, Fig. 2). If
11
A nice example of what is meant here by orthogonality is the case of the angular
correlation function or angular power spectrum, which is orthogonal to — i.e. completely
unaffected by — redshift distortions.
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
65
TABLE 1. Values of β
Survey
β
Reference
1. Ratio of redshift space to real space power spectra (plane-parallel)
CfA
SSRS
IRAS
IRAS
Optical
Stromlo-APM
Stromlo-APM
Stromlo-APM
Optical
Durham/UKST
0.53 ± 0.15
1.10 ± 0.16
0.84 ± 0.45
1.0 ± 0.2
0.77 ± 0.15
0.20+0.19
−0.22
0.48 ± 0.12
0.20 ± 0.44
0.40 ± 0.12
0.52 ± 0.39
Fry & Gaztañaga (1994)
···
···
Peacock & Dodds (1994)
···
Baugh (1996)
Loveday et al. (1996a)
Tadros & Efstathiou (1996)
Peacock (1997)
Ratcliffe et al. (1997)
2. Ratio of quadrupole to monopole redshift power (plane-parallel)
IRAS 2 Jy
Perseus-Pisces
IRAS 1.2 Jy
IRAS 1.2 Jy
QDOT
LCRS
QDOT + IRAS 1.2 Jy
IRAS 1.2 Jy
QDOT + IRAS 1.2 Jy
IRAS 1.2 Jy
Durham/UKST
Stromlo-APM
0.69+0.28
−0.24
0.75 ± 0.3
0.45+0.27
−0.18
0.52 ± 0.15
0.54 ± 0.3
0.5 ± 0.25
0.69+0.21
−0.19
0.6 ± 0.2
> 0.5 (95% confidence)
0.8+0.4
−0.3
0.48 ± 0.11
0.30+0.17
−0.15
Hamilton (1993a)
Bromley (1994)
Fisher et al. (1994b)
Cole, Fisher & Weinberg (1995)
···
Lin (1995)
Hamilton (1995)
Fisher & Nusser (1996)
Taylor & Hamilton (1996)
Bromley et al. (1997)
Ratcliffe et al. (1997)
This paper, §6
3. Maximum Likelihood (radial)
IRAS 1.2 Jy
IRAS 1.2 Jy
IRAS 1.2 Jy
0.96+0.20
−0.18
1.1 ± 0.3
1.04 ± 0.3
Fisher, Scharf & Lahav (1994)
Heavens & Taylor (1995)
Ballinger, Heavens & Taylor (1995)
optical galaxies are unbiased, boptical = 1, then the inferred value of the
cosmological density is Ω0 = 0.33+0.32
−0.22 . If on the other hand IRAS galaxies
are unbiased, bIRAS = 1, then Ω0 = 0.63+0.35
−0.27 .
66
A. J. S. HAMILTON
8.2. COMMENTS ON INDIVIDUAL MEASUREMENTS
The comments in this subsection are arranged in approximately the chronological order in which the measurements were published, except that measurements by the same author or group of authors are kept together.
8.2.1. Hamilton et al.
Hamilton (1993a) measured β in the IRAS 2 Jy survey (Strauss et al.
1992a) from a ratio of quadrupole-to-monopole correlation functions, weighted with pair separation in the fashion proposed by Hamilton (1992):
4
4 2
ξ2s (r)
3β + 7β
=
ξ0s (r) − ξ¯0s (r)
1 + 23 β + 15 β 2
(8.1)
where ξ̄0s (r) ≡ 3r −3 0r ξ0s (s)s2 ds. Cole, Fisher & Weinberg (1994, eq. [2.17]
and Appendix B) subsequently pointed out that Hamilton’s ratio (8.1) was
actually just a ratio of smoothed quadrupole to smoothed monopole power,
equation (5.12), in which the smoothing function is taken to be the second
spherical Bessel function, W (k) = j2 (kr) in equation (5.11). This smoothing
window vanishes at zero wavenumber, W (k) = 0 at k = 0, immunizing the
estimate against uncertainty in the mean density.
Hamilton (1995) and the present paper, §6 and Figure 7, use essentially
the same procedure as Hamilton (1993a), but with the smoothing function
taken to be a power law times a Gaussian, equation (5.15) with n = 2.
A principal topic of Hamilton (1995) was the presentation of evidence
of a large, by the look of it systematic, difference in clustering between the
near and far regions of the QDOT sample, which Hamilton suggested might
arise from some systematic in the IRAS PSC fluxes. To date no satisfactory
explanation of this problem has emerged.
Taylor & Hamilton (1996) studied the Zel’dovich approximation as a
means of approximating redshift distortions in the mildly nonlinear regime
(see §7.3). As an application, they fitted the ratio of quadrupole-to-monopole
power measured by Hamilton (1995) from the IRAS QDOT + 1.2 Jy survey, the same data as are plotted in Figure 7. They concluded that β > 0.5
at the 95% confidence level, using a full covariance matrix estimated from
the data.
R
8.2.2. Fisher et al.
The paper by Fisher et al. (1994b) was published after that of Fisher, Scharf
& Lahav (1994), but the former seems to be the intellectual predecessor,
so here it appears first.
Fisher et al.’s (1994b) paper on the IRAS 1.2 Jy redshift survey is especially useful because of its careful study of nonlinear effects through Cold
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
67
Dark Matter (CDM) N -body simulations engineered to the statistical properties of the 1.2 Jy survey. They pointed out that the redshift correlation
function along the line of sight of sight axis, ξ s (r// , 0) with r⊥ = 0, gives a
clear signature of the functional form of the pairwise velocity distribution,
and find that an isotropic exponential pairwise velocity distribution fits the
IRAS data well — indeed better than a more detailed anisotropic model
that they tried.
Fisher et al. measured the linear distortion parameter β from the statistic
¯
3v12 (r)[1 + ξ(r)]
∂ ln ξ(r)
=
(8.2)
β=
2
∂ ln a
2r ξ̄(r)
whereR v12 (r) is the mean pairwise infall velocity at separation r, and ξ̄(r) ≡
3r −3 0r ξ(s)s2 ds. The correlation functions ξ(r) and ξ̄(r) in equation (8.2)
are in real space, not redshift space, and Fisher et al. adopted the power law
fit ξ(r) = (r/3.76 h−1 Mpc)1.66 to the IRAS real space correlation function
estimated by Fisher et al. (1994a) from the angular correlation function.
The last equality in (8.2) is just the pair conservation equation (Peebles
1980, eq. [71.7]), true in both linear and nonlinear regimes, while the first
equality in (8.2) is true in the linear regime. Fisher et al. showed that the
−1
statistic (8.2) gave a reliable measure of β at separations r >
∼ 10 h Mpc in
three CDM simulations, one flat and unbiased, one flat and biased (b = 1.6),
and one open and unbiased.
To determine the infall velocity v12 (r) in the estimator (8.2), they modelled the pairwise velocity distribution as an isotropic exponential with
mean infall velocity v12 (r) and dispersion σ(r), the shape (but not amplitude) of these two velocities as a function of separation r being determined
in essence by the CDM simulations, but scaled and adjusted to match the
power law fit to the IRAS real space correlation function. To determine
the overall amplitudes of the infall velocity v12 (r) and dispersion σ(r), they
performed least squares fits to two functions that they measured from the
data at separations up to 16 h−1 Mpc: the quadrupole-to-monopole ratio
of correlation functions ξ2s (r)/ξ0s (r); and the line-of-sight correlation function ξ s (r// , r⊥ ) with r⊥ < 2 h−1 Mpc. In carrying out the fits, they used
a full covariance matrix estimated from the simulations. The measured
pairwise velocity dispersion (with scale-dependence fixed by their proce−1 at a separation of r = 1 h−1 Mpc, rising
dure) was σ(r) = 317+40
−49 km s
−1
−1
to ≈ 400 km s at r = 4 h Mpc, then declining again to ≈ 350 h−1 Mpc
at r = 10 h−1 Mpc (Fisher et al., Fig. 3). The final result from the estimator (8.2) was β = 0.45+0.27
−0.18 .
Fisher, Scharf & Lahav (1994) were the first to study radial redshift
distortions without using the plane-parallel approximation, and the first
to apply a maximum likelihood (ML) formalism to measure β (albeit with
68
A. J. S. HAMILTON
a rather crude choice of radial density modes). They expanded the IRAS
1.2 Jy density field in spherical harmonics about the observer (us), windowing the density in the radial direction with Gaussian windows centred at
four depths, 38, 58, 78, and 98 h−1 Mpc, each with a dispersion of 8 h−1 Mpc.
To make spherical harmonics uncorrelated requires full sky coverage, and
the 1.2 Jy survey has the asset that it already covers almost all the sky
at galactic latitudes |b| > 5◦ . While it is possible to take into account the
coupling of harmonics induced by incomplete sky coverage, Fisher et al.
chose instead to complete the sky coverage of the 1.2 Jy survey by interpolating over the plane of the Milky Way in a way that smoothly continued
structure. They worked in the Local Group (LG) frame (§4.3.1), and the
equations below do likewise.
In the course of their analysis, Fisher et al. did a cute trick, which is
worth pointing out here. Let a be the redshift space galaxy density ns (s)
in the LG frame, smoothed over some window f (s) (superscripts LG’s on
sLG and nLG are omitted for brevity):
a ≡
≈
Z
s
3
f (s)n (s) d s =
Z Z
f (r) + v − r̂.v
f (s)n(r) d3 r
LG
∂f (r) ∂r
n̄(r)[1 + δ(r)] d3 r .
(8.3)
The second equality in equation (8.3) is true because galaxies are conserved,
equation (4.25), and the last approximation, just a Taylor expansion of
f (s), is valid for windows f (s) that are sufficiently smooth in the radial
direction. Fisher et al. emphasized the point that the selection function
n̄(r) in a flux-limited survey is in fact a function of the true distance r
to a galaxy, not of its redshift distance s (see footnote12 ). Equation (8.3),
which is essentially an integration by parts, recasts the effect of redshift
distortions into the window f (r) rather than the selection function and the
density, which seems neat.
Actually, the redshift distortion is still there in the last expression of
equation (8.3), lurking in the peculiar velocity v − r̂.v LG . In the linear
regime, the velocities v and vLG are given as usual by equations (4.31) and
(4.43), and equation (8.3) reduces to
a=
Z
n̄(r) f (r) − β
∂
∂ ∂f (r)
r̂ .
−
∇−2 δ(r) d3 r ,
∂r
∂r
∂r r =0
(8.4)
12
It remains necessary nonetheless to estimate the real space selection function somehow, in order to evaluate the quantities (8.7) and (8.8). In practice Fisher et al. used the
selection function n̄s (r) estimated in redshift space, and discarded all monopole (ℓ = 0)
modes. This is fine for an all-sky survey — see the final paragraph of §4.4.3.
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
69
where it has been assumed that f (r)n̄(r)d3 r = 0. The latter is true for all
the windows considered by Fisher et al., and is a desirable feature in any
case to immunize measurements against uncertainty in the mean density.
Fisher et al. took the spherical transform of the redshift space density
folded through Gaussian radial windows, which corresponds to choosing
windows fℓm (r) in equation (8.3) (the subscript ℓm is appended to distinguish the windows) of the form
R
fℓm (r) ≡ f (r)Yℓm(r̂)
(8.5)
2
with f (r) ∝ e−[(r−r0 )/σ] /2 . They showed from equation (8.4) that, for an allsky survey, the resulting spherical transform aℓm could be written (Fisher
et al. eq. [8])
aℓm =
Z
0
∞h
i∗
ŵℓ (k) + β ŵℓC (k) δ̂ℓm (k) k2 dk/(2π)3
(8.6)
where δ̂ℓm (k) is the spherical transform (3.7) of the unredshifted overdensity, ŵℓ (k) is
Z
ŵℓ (k) = iℓ 4π
∞
0
jℓ (kr)f (r)n̄(r) r 2 dr ,
(8.7)
and ŵℓC (k) is a correction term embodying the redshift distortions:
ŵℓC (k)
ℓ
= i 4π
Z
0
∞
jℓ′ (kr)
1 K df (r)
n̄(r) r 2 dr ,
− δℓ1
3
kdr
(8.8)
with jℓ′ (x) ≡ djℓ (x)/dx the derivative of the ℓ’th spherical Bessel function.
K , which subtracts from the dipole (ℓ = 1)
The Kronecker delta term 13 δℓ1
term j1′ (kr) its value at r = 0, is the term that arises from the motion of
the LG.
It is important in equation (8.6) that the survey covers the entire sky.
If the survey were not all-sky, then the functions ŵℓ (k) in equation (8.6)
ℓ′ m′ (k), which act by matrix multiplication
would be replaced by matrices ŵℓm
on the spherical transform δ̂ℓ′ m′ (k) of the overdensity. Only in the case of
ℓ′ m′ (k) become diagonal; the quantities
an all-sky survey does the matrix ŵℓm
ŵℓ (k) in equation (8.6) are then the eigenvalues of the matrix.
For an all-sky survey, statistical isotropy implies that the aℓm are uncorrelated, with variances from equation (8.6)
h|aℓm |2 i =
Z 2
ŵℓ (k) + β ŵℓC (k) P (k) k 2 dk/(2π)3 + Nℓm
(8.9)
where Nℓm is the Poisson sampling noise, which is just the (expected) selfgalaxy contribution to h|aℓm |2 i. Fisher et al. used four separate Gaussian
70
A. J. S. HAMILTON
radial windows. Here there are also covariances haiℓm aj∗
ℓm i between the different radial windows i and j, but still only covariances with the same ℓm are
non-zero. To determine β, Fisher et al. combined the observed amplitudes
aiℓm measured in the 1.2 Jy survey for ℓ = 1 to 10 into a likelihood function,
adopting as prior an unredshifted power spectrum P (k) with fixed shape
corresponding to a CDM model with Γ = 0.2 (Efstathiou, Bond & White
1992), and fixed amplitude σ8 = 0.69 ± 0.04, as determined by Fisher et
al. (1993). The final result was β = 0.96+0.20
−0.18 , which is the value quoted in
Table 8.1.
Fisher et al. also quote (in proof) a result reported by Fisher (1993), in
which the likelihood analysis is done with the shape parameter Γ as well
as β treated as a free parameter, with the result β = 0.94 ± 0.17 and Γ =
0.17 ± 0.05. The uncertainty here is the conditional 1σ uncertainty, which
comes from projecting the ∆ ln L = −0.5 contour on to the parameter axes.
If the amplitude σ8 is also treated as a free parameter, then β = 0.47±0.25,
Γ = 0.15 ± 0.05, and σ8 = 0.81 ± 0.06. There is a strong anti-correlation
between β and σ8 , and Fisher (1993) argues that the more reliable value of
β is probably the higher one obtained when σ8 is set to the value measured
from the real space correlation function.
It is instructive to derive a more general version of equation (8.6). Let
w(r) denote the product of a (complex-valued, in general) window f (r)
(not necessarily of the form [8.5]) with the selection function n̄(r) (not
necessarily all-sky)
w∗ (r) ≡ f (r)n̄(r) .
(8.10)
Assume, following Fisher et al., that w(r)d3 r = 0, always a good idea
in any case to protect against uncertainty in the mean density. Then the
windowed overdensity a, equation (8.3) is, for linear distortions,
R
a=
Z
w∗ (r)δs (r) d3 r =
Z
w∗ (r)SLG δ(r) d3 r =
Z h
i∗
SLG† w(r) δ(r) d3 r
(8.11)
where
is the linear redshift distortion operator in the LG frame, equation (4.46), and SLG† is its Hermitian conjugate, equation (4.50). It follows
that the windowed density a is
SLG
a=
i∗
Z h
w(r) + βwC (r) δ(r) d3 r
(8.12)
where wC (r) is the result of the distortion term (the part proportional to
β) in SLG† , equation (4.50), acting on the window w(r):
C
w (r) = ∇
−2 −2
r
∂
∂r
α(r) 2
∂
r̂ ∂ ∇−2 α(r)r w(r) .
−
r − 2.
∂r
r
r ∂r r =0
(8.13)
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
71
The correction term (8.13) can be rewritten in a variety of ways, including
one of the same ilk as Fisher et al.’s expression, equation (8.8),
w
C∗
(r) =
Z
r − r′
r
r̂ ′
.
− 3
′
3
4π
|r − r |
r
∂f (r ′ )
n̄(r ′ ) d3 r ′ .
∂r ′
(8.14)
The r/r 3 term in the integrand, which subtracts from (r − r ′ )/|r − r ′ |3
its value at r ′ = 0, is the term that arises from the motion of the LG.
Recasting the integral (8.12) in spherical transform space, equations (3.7),
(3.9), and (3.33), gives
a=
Z
0
∞ Xh
i∗
C
wℓm (k) + βwℓm
(k) δ̂ℓm (k) k2 dk/(2π)3
ℓm
(8.15)
which generalizes equation (8.6). Equation (8.13) reveals the nature of the
correction term wC , and it is readily confirmed that Fisher et al.’s result (8.8) is regained if the window is chosen to be w∗ (r) = f (r)Yℓm(r̂)n̄(r)
in an all-sky survey, where the selection function n̄(r) is the same in all
directions over the sky.
The same derivation can be written compactly in terms of vectors and
matrices in Hilbert space (see §3.3)
a = w† δ s = w† SLG δ = (SLG† w)† δ = (w + βwC )† δ .
(8.16)
Here w is a weighting function, a vector, SLG is the linear distortion operator (4.46) in the LG frame, a matrix, and δ is the vector of (unredshifted)
overdensities. Equation (8.16) generalizes easily to the case of an array of
quantities: the scalar a in equation (8.16) simply becomes a vector a, and
the weighting vector w becomes a matrix. The covariance matrix of such
an array is
ha a† i = (w + βwC )† ξ (w + βwC ) + N
(8.17)
where ξ is the (unredshifted) power spectrum matrix, and N is the Poisson
sampling noise matrix, the self-galaxy contribution to ha a† i.
8.2.3. Bromley et al.
Bromley (1994) proposed the idea of measuring β from a ratio of variances
of the redshift space density windowed through anisotropic sampling functions. Consider the statistic δ̃s which is the value of the density filtered
through some window (sampling function) w(r) randomly positioned in
the redshift survey
s
δ̃ ≡
Z
s
3
w(r)δ (r) d r =
Z
w(r)
ns (r) 3
d r
n̄s (r)
(8.18)
72
A. J. S. HAMILTON
where the last equality is true
as long as the window is chosen to have
R
vanishing volume integral, w(r)d3 r = 0, as was true for the windows
considered by Bromley. The real space integral in (8.18) can be rewritten
as a Fourier space integral
δ̃s =
Z
ŵ∗ (k)δ̂s (k) d3 k/(2π)3
(8.19)
where ŵ(k) and δ̂s (k) are the Fourier transforms of the sampling function
and overdensity. It follows that the expected shot-noise-subtracted variance
P̃ s of the filtered density is equal to the redshift space power spectrum
P s (k) folded with the power spectrum |ŵ(k)|2 of the sampling function
P̃ s ≡ h(δ̃s )2 i − N =
Z
|ŵ(k)|2 P s (k) d3 k/(2π)3
(8.20)
where N is the shot noise, the self-pair contribution to h(δ̃s )2 i. Shifting
the window w(r) to another random position in the survey simply changes
the phase of ŵ(k), which leaves the variance (8.20) unaltered. Bromley
now proposed to choose windows w(r) that were the gradient along some
unit direction n of some spherically symmetric function R(r), equivalent in
R
Fourier space to in.k times its Fourier transform R̂(k) = R(r)eik.r d3 r:
w(r) = n.∇R(r) ,
ŵ(k) = in.kR̂(k) .
(8.21)
If the unit directions n are chosen to be either parallel to or perpendicular
to the line of sight to the window, then the ratio of parallel to perpendicular
variances is (Bromley eq. [9]; see also Gramann, Cen & Gott 1994, eq.[10],
which however contains an error)
P̃/s/
=
P̃⊥s
1R
2
R
µ2k W (k)P s (k) d3 k
(1 − µ2k )W (k)P s (k) d3 k
=
1 + 65 β + 37 β 2
3 2
1 + 25 β + 35
β
(8.22)
where the last equality follows from Kaiser’s equation (4.36), and the smoothing window is W (k) = k2 |R̂(k)|2 . If the parallel and perpendicular variances
are measured from many random samplings in a redshift survey, then their
ratio P̃/s/ /P̃⊥s should yield a measure of β.
Bromley applied this idea to the Giovanelli & Haynes (1991, and references therein; Wegner, Haynes & Giovanelli 1993) redshift survey of the
Pisces-Perseus region, which is complete to blue magnitude mB = 15.7 and
contains over 4000 galaxies. He used a quartic window R = [1 − (r/λ)2 ]2 ,
with λ = 14–17 h−1 Mpc. The value β = 0.75 ± 0.3 listed in Table 8.1 is
measured from Bromley’s Figure 2 at λ = 16 h−1 Mpc, a length scale that
he states gave the best results in CDM simulations of the procedure.
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
73
It is useful to relate Bromley’s statistic (8.22) to the harmonics of the
power spectrum. Both numerator and denominator are sums of monopole
and quadrupole harmonics of the power spectrum filtered through the window W (k) = k2 |R̂(k)|2 , equation (5.11),
P̃0s + 25 P̃2s
P̃/s/
=
.
P̃⊥s
P̃0s − 51 P̃2s
(8.23)
Thus the procedure is effectively equivalent to measuring a quadrupole-tomonopole ratio of smoothed power spectra.
Bromley, Warren & Zurek (1997) developed Bromley’s (1994) procedure
further, using a neat trick to correct for nonlinearity. The paper is notable
also for reporting redshift distortions from two large (17 million particle)
high resolution CDM simulations with Ω = 1 and H0 = 50 km/s/Mpc,
one 125 h−1 Mpc on a side, the other 500 h−1 Mpc on a side. The 1-dimensional pairwise velocity dispersion of the simulations was 1100 km s−1
and 850 km s−1 (at a separation of 1 h−1 Mpc) respectively for the mass
and the haloes (‘galaxies’), considerably higher than observations. However,
Bromley et al. were able to engineer a set of haloes with velocity dispersion
384 h−1 Mpc and clustering properties consistent with those of the IRAS
1.2 Jy sample (Brainerd et al. 1996) by the device of eliminating all objects
that were within 3 Abell radii of the highest density peaks and that had
peculiar velocities greater than 750 km s−1 . Such culling is, as they say,
‘rather contrived’, but it is true that IRAS galaxies are conspicuous by
their absence from rich clusters such as the Coma cluster, and it is possible
that nature pulls a similar trick.
Bromley et al.’s idea for nonlinearity was to modify the anisotropy of
sampling functions in a way designed to cancel nonlinearity. Suppose that
ŵL (k) are a set of ‘linear’ sampling functions, and suppose that nonlinearity
can be modelled with a random isotropic pairwise velocity dispersion f (v),
as in §7.2. Then the sampling functions can be ‘corrected’ for nonlinearity
by dividing them in Fourier space by the square root of the line-of-sight
Fourier transform fˆ(k// ) (note k// = kµk ) of the velocity dispersion:
ŵ(k) =
ŵL (k)
.
ˆ
f (kµk )1/2
(8.24)
Bromley et al. assumed the exponential model for the pairwise velocity distribution, equation (7.4), which appears to give a good description of pairwise velocities in the 1.2 Jy survey (Fisher et al. 1994b). With this choice,
and with the linear sampling functions chosen as before, equation (8.21),
to be the parallel and perpendicular gradients of a spherically symmetric
function, the expected shot-noise-subtracted variances (8.20) of the filtered
74
A. J. S. HAMILTON
densities are equal to the redshift space power spectrum folded through the
functions
1
|ŵ// (k)|2 = µ2k 1 + σ 2 k2 µ2k k2 |R̂(k)|2
2
1
1
|ŵ⊥ (k)|2 =
(1 − µ2k ) 1 + σ 2 k2 µ2k k2 |R̂(k)|2 .
2
2
(8.25)
The factor (1 + 21 σ 2 k2 µ2k ) ‘corrects’ the redshift power spectrum for nonlinearity, equations (7.2) and (7.4), so the resulting ratio P̃/s/ /P̃⊥s of parallel
to perpendicular variances should be equal to the linear ratio (8.22). Once
again, as in (8.23), it is instructive to express this ratio in terms of harmonics of the smoothed power spectrum:
3 sN L
P̃0s + 25 P̃2s + σ 2 ( 10
+
P̃0
P̃/s/
=
1 s
1 sN L
s
s
2
P̃⊥
P̃0 − 5 P̃2 + σ ( 10 P̃0
+
6 sN L
35 P̃2
1 sN L
70 P̃2
+
−
4
sN L )
105 P̃4
2
sN L )
105 P̃4
(8.26)
where P̃ℓsN L are the harmonics of the power spectrum smoothed over the
window k2 W (k) = k4 |R̂(k)|2 instead of W (k) (cf. eq. [5.11]),
P̃ℓsN L
=
Z
∞
0
W (k)Pℓs (k) 4πk4 dk/(2π)3 .
(8.27)
The nonlinear correction is equivalent to replacing ‘linear’ estimators of
the monopole and quadrupole harmonics of the redshift power spectrum
by ‘nonlinear’ estimators
1 sN L
P̃
+
6 0
1 sN L
→ P̃2s + σ 2
P̃
+
3 0
P̃0s → P̃0s + σ 2
P̃2s
1 sN L
P̃
15 2
11 sN L
2
P̃2
+ P̃4sN L .
42
21
(8.28)
Two comments can be made about the nonlinear correction. Firstly, it
involves incorporating judicious quantities of monopole, quadrupole, and
hexadecapole terms into the linear estimators of the parallel and perpendicular (or monopole and quadrupole) power, which seems like a simple
and stable procedure. Secondly, the nonlinear correction terms involve the
power spectrum multiplied by an extra factor of k2 , equation (8.27), so that
the correction becomes larger further into the nonlinear regime, at larger
k, as one might expect.
Bromley et al. applied their procedure both to their N -body simulations, and to the IRAS 1.2 Jy survey. For the spherical function R(r),
2
they adopted a Gaussian R(r) = e−(r/λ) /2 , in place of Bromley’s (1994)
quartic. As it happens, the resulting (linear) smoothing window W (k) =
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
75
2
k2 |R̂(k)|2 ∝ k2 e−(kλ) coincides with that of Hamilton (1995), which is the
same smoothing window used in Figure 7, and the nonlinear smoothing
2
window k2 W (k) ∝ k4 e−(kλ) also belongs to the class of windows specified
in equation (5.15).
The simulations gave good agreement with expectation. For the 1.2 Jy
survey, Bromley et al. assumed a velocity dispersion of σ = 320 km s−1 ,
which is a reasonable approximation to the (scale-dependent) velocity dispersion measured by Fisher et al. (1994b). The final result was β = 0.8+0.4
−0.3 .
8.2.4. Cole, Fisher et al.
Cole, Fisher & Weinberg (1994, 1995) wrote a pair of papers, in the first of
which they described and tested with N -body simulations a procedure to
measure the redshift power spectrum in the plane-parallel approximation,
and in the second of which they applied their procedure to measure β from
the quadrupole-to-monopole ratio of power in the IRAS 1.2 Jy and QDOT
surveys.
To ensure the validity of the plane-parallel approximation, they first
windowed the surveys through sets of spherical bowler hat windows w(|r −
r c |) (a bowler is a top hat convolved with a Gaussian), centred at random
positions r c sufficiently far from the observer that the windows subtended
an opening angle no greater than 50◦ . Cole et al. (1994, Fig. 8) showed
that at this opening angle and using their procedure, the plane-parallel approximation causes β to be underestimated by approximately 5%. They
defined the line of sight to each window as the direction to its centre
r c . In the plane-parallel approximation, the shot-noise-subtracted power
spectrum
P̃ s (k, µk ) measured through a window w(|r − r c |) (normalized
R
to w(r)d3 r = 1) is the convolution of the true redshift power spectrum
P s (k, µk ) with the power spectrum |ŵ(k)|2 of the window (Cole et al. 1994,
eq. [3.4]),
P̃ s (k, µk ) =
Z
ŵ(|k − k′ |)2 P s (k ′ , µ
3 ′
3
k′ ) d k /(2π) .
(8.29)
It follows (Cole et al. 1994, eq. [3.5]) that the harmonics P̃ℓs (k) of the power
spectrum measured through the window are equal to the harmonics Pℓs (k)
of the actual power spectrum convolved with the harmonics Wℓ (k, k′ ) of
the power spectrum of the window:
P̃ℓs (k)
where
=
Z
∞
0
Wℓ (k, k′ )Pℓs (k′ ) 4πk′2 dk′ /(2π)3
X
′
ŵ(|k′ − k|)2 =
(2ℓ + 1)Pℓ (k̂.k̂ )Wℓ (k, k′ ) .
ℓ
(8.30)
(8.31)
76
A. J. S. HAMILTON
The spherical symmetry of the window w(r) is essential here to ensure that
the ℓ’th harmonic of the true power spectrum maps only to the ℓ’th harmonic of the observed power spectrum. The fact that the kernels Wℓ (k, k′ )
are different for different harmonics ℓ means that the ratio P̃2s (k)/P̃0s (k) of
measured quadrupole-to-monopole harmonics no longer satisfies the simple
formula (5.8). However, Cole et al. (1994, Table 1 and Fig. 5) showed that
the measured ratio P̃2s (k)/P̃0s (k) is equal to the true ratio P2s (k)/P0s (k) multiplied by a correction factor ≈ 0.7 which, although appreciably different
from unity, is nevertheless insensitive to the shape of the power spectrum.
In practice they adopted correction factors appropriate for the Γ = 0.25
CDM spectrum of Efstathiou, Bond & White (1992).
The Fourier transform ŵ(k) of the bowler hat window is the product of
the first spherical Bessel function j1 (kRsph ) with a Gaussian, where Rsph
is the radius of the top hat. Cole et al. used only wavenumbers k for which
kRsph are zeros of j1 (kRsph ) (in practice they used only the first two zeros,
at kRsph = 4.49 and 7.72). With this choice, the integrand in equation (8.29)
vanishes at k′ = 0, which eliminates leakage from power at zero wavevector, so immunizing the measurement of power against uncertainty in the
mean density (which makes a delta-function contribution to power at zero
wavevector). This clever trick was used first by Fisher et al. (1993).
Cole et al. (1995) combined their measurements of the redshift power
spectrum P̃ s (k, µk ) from bowler windows at different depths using an
inverse-variance weighting, the variance of the power from each window being estimated in the manner of Feldman, Kaiser & Peacock (1994). They fitted the averaged P̃ s (k, µk ) to a sum of harmonics, from which they formed
the quadrupole-to-monopole ratio P̃2s (k)/P̃0s (k), which they divided by the
aforesaid correction factor ≈ 0.7 to obtain the true ratio P2s (k)/P0s (k). To
allow for nonlinearity, they adopted the model in which the linear redshift
distortion is modulated by a random one-point (not pairwise) exponential
velocity dispersion. To arrive at a final value of β and the velocity dispersion σ in each of the 1.2 Jy and QDOT surveys, they carried out a least
squares fit to the quadrupole-to-monopole ratios as a function of wavenumber k, using a full covariance matrix estimated from an ensemble of mock
catalogues constructed from N -body simulations.
Fisher & Nusser (1996) studied the Zel’dovich approximation as a
means of approximating redshift distortions in the mildly nonlinear regime
(see §7.3). As an application, they fitted the ratio of quadrupole-to-monopole
power measured by Cole, Fisher & Weinberg (1995) from the IRAS 1.2 Jy
survey, finding β = 0.6 ± 0.2.
8.2.5. Fry & Gaztañaga
Fry & Gaztañaga (1994) compared redshift to real space correlation func-
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
77
tions in each of three redshift surveys, the first Center for Astrophysics
(CfA1) survey (Huchra et al. 1983), the Southern Sky Redshift Survey
(SSRS) (da Costa et al. 1991), and the IRAS 2 Jy survey (Strauss et
al. 1992a). Their procedure
was: measure the volume-averaged correlation
R
functions ξ¯ = V −2 V ξ(r12 )d3 r1 d3 r2 , in spherical volumes V for redshift
space, and conical volumes V for real space; find the best power law fits to
ξ s (r) and ξ(r) that reproduce the behaviour of the volume-averaged ξ̄ in
each case; infer β from the ratio ξ s (r)/ξ(r) of the fitted power law correlation functions at the largest separations probed, r ∼ 5–10 h−1 Mpc; repeat
this for several volume-limited subsamples, and adopt an average β. The
resulting values of β seem surprisingly large for such modest separations.
However, given the indirectness of the procedure for measuring large scale
power, and some lack of rigour in the error analysis, one might be inclined
to take the numbers with a pinch of salt.
8.2.6. Peacock et al.
Peacock & Dodds’ (1994) principal goal was not so much to measure β
as to reconstruct the linear power spectrum of mass fluctuations from a
compilation of available observational evidence. A feature of the paper was
the derivation of empirical analytic formulae relating linear and nonlinear
power spectra, using a procedure inspired by one proposed by Hamilton et
al. (1991). Updated versions of Peacock & Dodds’ formulae are given by
Peacock & Dodds (1996).
The value of β measured by Peacock & Dodds (1994) followed from
a comparison of redshift space to real space power spectra. For the real
space power spectrum they adopted the APM power spectrum of Baugh &
Efstathiou (1993), while for redshift space power spectra they considered
power spectra from the IRAS QDOT survey (Feldman, Kaiser & Peacock
1994), the Stromlo-APM survey (Loveday et al. 1992), and the CfA2 survey (Vogeley et al. 1992). To combine the various observed power spectra
into a single canonical linear power spectrum, they introduced linear bias
factors b, equation (4.15), corrected the galaxy power spectra for nonlinear
evolution, and modelled nonlinearity in the redshift distortions with a random Gaussianly distributed velocity dispersion. To break the degeneracy
between Ω0 and bias b that occurs in β ≈ Ω0.6
0 /b, they brought into consideration the power spectra of Abell clusters (Peacock & West 1992) and
of radio galaxies (Peacock & Nicholson 1991), which they assumed to be
biased but (unlike galaxies) unaffected by nonlinear evolution. With these
assumptions they found boptical /bIRAS = 1.3 and βIRAS = 1.0 ± 0.2, which
imply also βoptical = 0.77 ± 0.15. The absolute values of the bias factors
were less well determined than their relative values; the best models had
bIRAS ≈ 0.8.
78
A. J. S. HAMILTON
Peacock (1997) carried out an improved version of Peacock & Dodds’
(1994) analysis, arriving at the notably lower value of βoptical = 0.40 ± 0.12
from optical data alone. As in the earlier paper, for optical data Peacock
used the real space APM power spectrum from Baugh & Efstathiou (1993;
also 1994), and redshift space power spectra from the Stromlo-APM survey
(Loveday et al. 1992) and the CfA2 survey (Vogeley et al. 1992). The reason
for the lower value of β was that Peacock increased the real space APM
power spectrum from Baugh & Efstathiou (1993) by a factor of 1.25 in
order to match it to the amplitude of the real space correlation function
of Stromlo-APM, as measured by Loveday et al. (1995) using the crosscorrelation technique of Saunders et al. (1992). This adjustment reduces
βoptical from 0.77 to 0.40, in accordance with equation (5.1).
Peacock carried out a separate analysis for IRAS data, but here the
results were less conclusive. He used a real space IRAS power spectrum
obtained by transforming the cross-correlation function between the 1-in6 QDOT survey and its parent QIGC catalogue, measured by Saunders,
Rowan-Robinson & Lawrence (1992), while for the redshift power spectrum he adopted Tadros & Efstathiou’s (1995) power spectrum of the combined IRAS 1.2 Jy and QDOT surveys, in place of the Feldman et al.
(1994) QDOT power spectrum. The redshift power spectrum of the combined IRAS 1.2 Jy and QDOT surveys is lower than that of the QDOT
survey thanks in large part to a region in Hercules, which Tadros & Efstathiou showed produces an anomalously large upward excursion in the
QDOT power spectrum (cf. Hamilton 1995; Oliver et al. 1996). Tadros &
Efstathiou’s downwardly revised redshift power spectrum lay below Saunders et al.’s real space power spectrum at wavenumbers k < 0.05 h Mpc−1 ,
nominally suggesting a negative β, and causing Peacock to discard those
points. Such machinations do not inspire confidence, and Peacock avoided
drawing any definitive conclusion.
Besides improved data, Peacock applied various theoretical improvements: he used an improved treatment of nonlinear evolution (Peacock &
Dodds 1996); the ratio of optical and IRAS real space power spectra indicated some scale dependence in bias, which he fitted with a two-parameter
power law model (Mann, Peacock & Heavens 1997) in place of the oneparameter linear bias model; he abandoned the use of Abell cluster and radio galaxy power spectra; and he used an exponential rather than Gaussian
pairwise velocity distribution to model nonlinearity in redshift distortions.
In the latter half of the paper, Peacock went on to discuss bias, Ω0 ,
and the shape of the reconstructed, linearized power spectrum, adducing a
variety of arguments to conclude that a low bias, low Ω0 model is preferred
over a high bias, high Ω0 model.
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
79
8.2.7. Heavens, Taylor, et al.
Heavens & Taylor (1995) were the first to apply a full-blown maximum
likelihood procedure to measure β, in a manner designed to retain as much
information as possible about β in the linear regime. They took the IRAS
1.2 Jy survey as the data set, conservatively cut to galactic latitude |b| >
10◦ . They chose to work in a basis of spherical waves, and in the frame
of the Local Group (LG). First, they defined the unredshifted overdensity
modes δnℓm by the discrete spherical transform (the definition below is the
complex conjugate of Heavens & Taylor’s definition, but it conforms to the
convention of the present review, eq. [3.8], which follows that of Peebles
1980, §46)
δnℓm ≡ cnℓ
Z
jℓ (knℓ r)Yℓm (r̂)δ(r) d3 r , δ(r) =
r<rmax
X
∗
cnℓ jℓ (knℓ r)Yℓm
(r̂)δnℓm
nℓm
(8.32)
where the integration is over a finite sphere of radius rmax = 200 h−1 Mpc,
the cnℓ are normalization constants, and the wavenumbers knℓ are chosen
to satisfy the boundary condition jℓ′ (knℓ rmax ) = 0, which ensures that the
predicted linear peculiar velocity field vanishes on the boundary of the
sphere (see Fisher et al. 1995b for a discussion of boundary conditions).
Next, they defined observed, redshifted modes Dnℓm by
Dnℓm ≡ cnℓ
Z
jℓ (knℓ r)Yℓm (r̂)w(r)n̄(r)δs (r) d3 r
(8.33)
r<rmax
which, besides being in redshift space, involve an additional factor w(r)n̄(r)
in the integrand compared to (8.32). The radial weighting function w(r)
(which in practice depended also on nℓ) is a near-minimum-variance weighting which helps to reduce the noise in each mode, hence to increase the information content of each mode, and hence to reduce the number of modes
required. They derived approximate expressions for the weightings wP (r)
and wβ (r) that optimize each mode Dnℓm for measuring respectively the
normalization of the power spectrum P and the distortion parameter β.
What it means to optimize modes for the measurement of particular parameters is clarified by Tegmark, Taylor & Heavens (1997) and Tegmark
et al. (1997). Heavens & Taylor showed that their modes Dµ (abbreviating
nℓm = µ) are linearly related to the unredshifted overdensity modes δµ by
Dµ =
X
(Φµν + βVµν )δν .
(8.34)
ν
The matrix Φµν + βVµν can be recognized as the representation in spherical
transform space of the operator w(r)n̄(r)SLG , where SLG is the redshift
80
A. J. S. HAMILTON
distortion operator (4.46) in the LG frame13 . Heavens & Taylor introduced
one further refinement, to model nonlinearity as a random Gaussian velocity
field (cf. §7.2), which has the effect of modifying the matrix Φµν + βVµν
in equation (8.34) by pre-multiplying it by another matrix. The expected
covariance matrix of the modes is then
Cµν ≡ hDµ Dν∗ i =
X
(Φµα + βVµα )(Φνα + βVνα )∗ P (kα ) + Nµν
(8.35)
α
where Nµν is the Poisson sampling noise, which is just the (expected) selfgalaxy contribution to hDµ Dν∗ i. In all, Heavens and Taylor’s covariance
matrix Cµν took into account finite sky coverage, linear redshift distortions, nonlinearity modelled as a random Gaussian velocity distribution,
and Poisson sampling noise.
The prior covariance Cµν , equation (8.35), depends on the unredshifted
power spectrum P (k) and on the distortion parameter β. Heavens & Taylor
adopted as prior the shape of the power spectrum measured by Peacock &
Dodds (1994), but retained its overall amplitude σ82 and the distortion parameter β as parameters to be measured from the likelihood analysis. They
assumed a Gaussian likelihood function, equation (5.17), and included observed modes Dnℓm with knℓ < 0.1 hMpc−1 , a total of 604 modes, with maximum values ℓ = 17 and n = 6. The prior covariance Cµν , equation (8.35),
was computed including modes δnℓm up to ℓ = 30 and n = 20. The final result of the likelihood analysis was β = 1.1±0.3 . The uncertainty here is the
conditional 1σ uncertainty, which comes from projecting the ∆ ln L = −0.5
contour on to the parameter axes. Heavens (1997, private communication)
states that a more conservative estimate of the uncertainty in β is the
marginal uncertainty, ±0.5 (1σ), which results from integrating the likelihood over the probability distribution of the amplitude σ8 . Heavens &
Taylor commented that the maximum likelihood value of β dropped to 0.5
when the maximum knℓ was increased from 0.1 to 0.12 hMpc−1 , which increases the number of modes from 604 to 1048. They attributed the change
in β to the onset of nonlinearity, but it seems likely that statistical fluctuation rather than nonlinearity would cause so dramatic change in β for so
small a change in the cutoff wavenumber.
13
Actually they used the distortion operator S appropriate to the CMB frame, equation (4.23), rather than the distortion operator SLG in the LG frame, equation (4.46),
and they dropped the dipole (ℓ = 1) modes from the likelihood analysis. This is not
quite correct, although the error should be minor for a near all-sky survey. They used
a selection function, their equation (54), from Fisher, private communication; whether
this was a real or redshift selection function is unclear. If a redshift selection function,
then strictly the distortion operator Ss LG relative to the redshift space selection function
should be used, as discussed in §4.4.2. Again, Heavens & Taylor dropped the monopole
(ℓ = 0) modes from the likelihood analysis, so whatever the case, any error should be
minor for this near all-sky survey.
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
81
Ballinger, Heavens & Taylor (1995) took Heavens & Taylor’s procedure
a step further by parametrizing the power spectrum by its amplitude in six
logarithmically spaced bins, rather than just an overall normalization. Otherwise the analysis proceeded essentially exactly as in Heavens & Taylor,
with a similar result, β = 1.04 ± 0.3.
Tegmark, Taylor & Heavens (1997) report that the 604 modes used by
Heavens & Taylor (1995) can be compressed to as few as 60 signal-to-noise
eigenmodes (so called Karhunen-Loève modes) of β, without appreciable
loss of accuracy in β. This compression step, which involves solving an
eigenvalue equation in the covariance matrix Cµν , does not obviate the
necessity to compute the covariance matrix at full size, but it can reduce
the work involved in computing likelihood contours for the parameters.
8.2.8. Lin
Lin (1995) examined redshift distortions, and measured the pairwise velocity dispersion, in the Las Campanas Redshift Survey (LCRS) (Shectman
et al. 1996), which contains 23697 galaxies in six narrow slices each 1.◦ 5 in
declination and 80◦ in right ascension, three each in the north and south
galactic caps. Lin measured β = 0.5 ± 0.25 using Hamilton’s (1992) estimator of the quadrupole-to-monopole power, equation (8.1).
8.2.9. Baugh
Baugh (1996) compared the real space correlation function ξ(r) of the APM
survey obtained by Fourier transforming the power spectrum derived by
Baugh & Efstathiou (1993), to the redshift space correlation function ξ s (r)
of the Stromlo-APM survey from Loveday et al. (1995). Uncertainty in the
APM real space power spectrum arises from uncertainty in cosmological
geometry (i.e. in Ω0 ), and in the evolution of the power spectrum with
redshift, parametrized as P (k) ∝ (1 + z)−α at fixed comoving wavenumber
k (so α = 2 for linear growth in an Ω = 1 Universe). Baugh (his Table 2)
quoted three values of β, two assuming no evolution, α = 0 and Ω0 = 1
+0.21
or 0.2, giving respectively β = 0.61+0.20
−0.23 or 0.45−0.23 , and one value with
+0.19
evolution, α = 2 and Ω0 = 1, giving β = 0.20−0.22 . Evidently the value of
β is quite sensitive to the assumed geometry and evolution. Observations
suggest quite strong evolution. For example, Le Fèvre et al. (1996) find
from the Canada-France Redshift Survey (CFRS) an evolutionary index14
ǫ = 0.4 ± 1.1, corresponding to α = 1.7 ± 1.1. Table 8.1 in this review
therefore lists Baugh’s value β = 0.20+0.19
−0.22 with evolution. Presumably the
uncertainty arising from evolution could be resolved in a manner similar
14
Le Fèvre et al. define evolution with respect to proper, not comoving coordinates:
their index ǫ is related to Baugh’s index α by 3 + ǫ = α + γ, where γ ≈ 1.7 is the
logarithmic slope of the correlation function.
82
A. J. S. HAMILTON
to Peacock (1997) — the APM power spectrum could be normalized so
as to agree with the amplitude of the real space correlation function of
Stromlo-APM deduced by Loveday et al. (1995).
8.2.10. Loveday et al.
Loveday et al. (1996a) examined the Stromlo-APM redshift survey (Loveday et al. 1996b), a 1-in-20 survey of galaxies brighter bJ = 17.15 in
the Automatic Plate Measuring (APM) survey (Maddox et al. 1990a,b,
1996). They considered both of the first two methods described in §5.
They measured the real space correlation function ξ(r) from the projected
cross-correlation between the Stromlo-APM survey and its parent APM
survey, using the procedure of Saunders, Rowan-Robinson & Lawrence
(1992), as described by Loveday et al. (1995). They measured the monopole,
quadrupole, and hexadecapole harmonics ξℓs (r) of the redshift space correlation function using the procedure of Hamilton (1993b).
They tested the different methods with mock catalogues constructed
from two ensembles of N -body simulations described by Croft & Efstathiou
(1994), 10 flat CDM simulations with a cosmological constant, ΩM = 0.2
and ΩΛ = 0.8, and 9 flat Mixed Dark Matter simulations, ΩCDM = 0.7
and Ων = 0.3 (ν for neutrinos denotes Hot Dark Matter). Loveday et al.
found from the simulations that nonlinearities affect the angle-averaged
s
−1
(monopole) correlation function
R r ξs (r)2 up to separations r ∼ 10 h−1 Mpc,
s
its volume integral J (r) ≡ 0 ξ (s)s ds to separations r ∼ 20 h Mpc,
and the quadrupole and hexadecapole harmonics ξ2s (r) and ξ4s (r) to scales
r ∼ 30 h−1 Mpc. They concluded that the first method, the ratio of redshift to real space correlation functions (or its integrals) is likely to yield
more reliable measures of β. In practice the ratio J s (r)/J(r) of integrated
correlation functions proved considerably less noisy than ξ s (r)/ξ(r), so the
former was their statistic of choice.
For the Stromlo-APM survey, Loveday et al. found β = 0.48 ± 0.12 from
the ratio J s (r)/J(r) at its most accurately measured point, a separation of
r = 17.8 h−1 Mpc. This is also the point where the observed ratio J s (r)/J(r)
reached its maximum value, so they also concluded more conservatively
that the data favoured β <
∼ 0.6. They also considered Hamilton’s (1992)
quadrupole-to-monopole ratio, equation (8.1), but were unable to draw any
conclusions from this estimator. The conclusion that nonlinearities have
a large effect on the quadrupole-to-monopole ratio in the Stromlo-APM
survey agrees with the analysis of the present review, §6.
8.2.11. Tadros & Efstathiou
Tadros & Efstathiou (1996) carried out an analysis similar to Baugh (1996),
§8.2.9, except that they worked with the power spectrum instead of the cor-
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
83
relation function. Tadros & Efstathiou computed the redshift space power
spectrum P s (k) of the Stromlo-APM survey, and compared this to the real
space power spectrum P (k) of the APM survey computed by Baugh &
Efstathiou (1993). Table 8.1 quotes the ‘Flux Limited’ (misprinted ‘Flux
Weighted’) result from Tadros & Efstathiou’s Table 2, since this weighting
is expected to (and in fact did) give lower variance than the ‘Volume Limited’ weighting. As with Baugh (1996), systematic uncertainty in the real
space APM power spectrum arises from uncertainty in its rate of evolution
with redshift, and again Tadros & Efstathiou gave values both without evolution, β = 0.74 ± 0.48 for α = 0, and with evolution, β = 0.20 ± 0.44 for
α = 1.3. Table 8.1 quotes the value with evolution.
8.2.12. Ratcliffe et al.
Ratcliffe et al. (1997) studied the Durham/UKST (UK Schmidt Telescope)
redshift survey, which is a > 75% complete 1-in-3 redshift survey of galaxies
brighter than bJ ≈ 17 in the Edinburgh/Durham Southern Galaxy Catalogue (Collins, Heydon-Dumbleton & MacGillivray 1988; Collins, Nichol
& Lumsden 1992). The survey contains ≈ 2500 galaxies over a region
∼ 20◦ × 70◦ centred on the South Galactic Pole.
Ratcliffe et al. used both of the first two methods described in §5. For the
first method, they measured both the angle-averaged redshift correlation
function ξ s (r) and the real space correlation function ξ(r) from the survey,
inferring the latter from the projected redshift correlation function using
Saunders et al.’s (1992) procedure. The resulting ratio ξ s (r)/ξ(r) of redshift
to real correlation functions was quite noisy, so they consideredRinstead the
ratio J s (r)/J(r) of the integrated correlation functions J(r) ≡ 0r ξ(s)s2 ds,
finding β = 0.52 ± 0.39 at a separation r = 20 h−1 Mpc.
For the second method, Ratcliffe et al. used Hamilton’s (1992) estimator
of the quadrupole-to-monopole power, equation (8.1). Combining results
over separations r ≈ 10–20 h−1 Mpc gave β = 0.48 ± 0.11.
Ratcliffe et al. tested their procedures extensively with two sets of CDM
N -body simulations, one set an ΩM = 1 biased b = 1.6 model, the other
a spatially flat ΩM = 0.2, ΩΛ = 0.8 unbiased model with a cosmological
constant. These simulations were not matched in every respect to the observations — in particular the simulations had a considerably larger small scale
velocity dispersion. On the assumption of an exponential pairwise velocity
distribution, the 1-dimensional pairwise velocity dispersions were measured
to be 980 ± 22 km s−1 and 835 ± 60 km s−1 respectively for the ΩM = 1 and
0.2 models, compared to 416 ± 36 km s−1 for the Durham/UKST survey.
84
A. J. S. HAMILTON
Horizon
∞
1300
100
Horizon
∞
50
1300
20
100
50
10
20
5
10
1300
100
50
20
10
3
5
2
3
5
Redshift
Comoving distance
∞
Horizon
2
3
2
1
1
0
Ω0 = 1
1
0
Ω0 = 0.2
0
ΩM = 0.2
ΩΛ = 0.8
Figure 8. In this diagram, each wedge represents a cone of fixed opening angle, with
the observer (us) at the point of the cone, at zero redshift. The wedges show the relation between physical sizes, namely the comoving distances in the radial (vertical) and
transverse (horizontal) directions, and observable quantities, namely redshift and angular
separation, in three different cosmological models: (left) flat matter-dominated Universe;
(middle) open matter-dominated Universe with Ω0 = 0.2; (right) flat Universe with a
cosmological constant, ΩΛ = 0.8.
9. Cosmological Redshift Distortions
The relation between redshift and radial comoving distance, and between
angle and transverse comoving distance, is different for different cosmological models, as illustrated in Figure 8. The differences produce a cosmological redshift distortion that is zero at zero redshift, but that becomes more
marked at higher redshift.
The idea of using cosmological redshift distortions to measure cosmological parameters, notably the cosmological constant, was first proposed by
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
85
Alcock & Paczyński (1979). More recently, several authors have considered
the combined effect of distortions from peculiar velocities and from cosmology, both to see how cosmological distortion affects the measurement of β,
and to assess the prospect of measuring cosmological parameters from upcoming redshift surveys (Ballinger, Peacock & Heavens 1996; Matsubara &
Suto 1996; Nakamura, Matsubara & Suto 1997; de Laix & Starkman 1997).
Alcock & Paczyński (1979) argued, and subsequent authors have concurred, that the largest cosmological distortion is a Λ-squashing, a squashing in the radial direction that occurs if there is a large cosmological constant. By comparison, the differences in redshift distortions between low
and high ΩM models in the absence of a cosmological constant are relatively small.
The differences between redshift distortions predicted by models with
and without a cosmological constant at first increase with redshift, but then
saturate at z ≈ 1 for physically interesting models, those with ΩM >
∼ 0.1
(Ballinger, Peacock & Heavens 1996; Matsubara & Suto 1996). Even at
these redshifts, the cosmological distortion is not easy to distinguish from
redshift distortions caused by peculiar velocities. This degeneracy could in
principle be resolved because the cosmological and peculiar velocity signals
evolve differently with redshift, but in practice the uncertain evolution of
bias muddies the issue (Ballinger, Peacock & Heavens 1996). Nakamura,
Matsubara & Suto (1997) emphasize that cosmological redshift distortions
will affect the linear distortion parameter β at the 10–20% level in the
Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), which aims to go to a median depth
of z ≈ 0.1. de Laix & Starkman (1997) conclude that the SDSS will not
provide a clean signal of cosmological parameters from redshift distortions
in the linear regime.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by NSF grant AST93-19977 and by NASA Astrophysical Theory Grant NAG 5-2797. I thank Jon Loveday and George
Efstathiou for providing a copy of the Stromlo-APM survey in advance of
publication.
References
Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I.A. (1968) Handbook of Mathematical Functions. Dover,
New York.
Alcock, C. and Paczyński, B. (1979) An Evolution Free Test for Non-Zero Cosmological
Constant, Nature, 281, 358–359.
Bahcall, N.A., Cen, R. and Gramann, M. (1993) Redshift Space Clustering of Galaxies
and Cold Dark Matter Model, Ap. J., 408, L77–L80.
Ballinger, W.E., Heavens, A.F. and Taylor, A.N. (1995) The Real-Space Power Spectrum
86
A. J. S. HAMILTON
of IRAS Galaxies on Large Scales and the Redshift Distortion, MNRAS, 276, L59–
L63.
Ballinger, W.E., Peacock, J.A. and Heavens, A.F. (1996) Measuring the Cosmological
Constant with Redshift Distortions, MNRAS, 282, 877–888.
Bardeen, J., Bond, J.R., Kaiser, N. and Szalay, A. (1986) The Statistics of Peaks of
Gaussian Random Fields, Ap. J., 304, 15–61.
Baugh, C.M. (1996) The Real-Space Correlation Function Measured from the APM Survey, MNRAS, 280, 267–275.
Baugh, C.M. and Efstathiou, G. (1993) The Three-Dimensional Power Spectrum Measured from the APM Galaxy Survey – I. Use of the Angular Correlation Function,
MNRAS, 265, 145–156.
Baugh, C.M. and Efstathiou, G. (1994) The Three-Dimensional Power Spectrum Measured from the APM Galaxy Survey – II. Use of the Two-Dimensional Power Spectrum, MNRAS, 267, 323–332.
Bennett, C.L., Banday, A.J., Górski, K.M., Hinshaw, G., Jackson, P., Keegstra, P., Kogut,
A., Smoot, G.F., Wilkinson, D.T. and Wright, E.L. (1996) Four-Year COBE DMR
Cosmic Microwave Background Observations: Maps and Basic Results, Ap. J., 464,
L1–L4.
Binggeli, B., Sandage, A. and Tammann, G.A. (1988) The Luminosity Function of Galaxies, Ann. Rev. Astr. Ap., 26, 509–560.
Blackman, R.B. and Tukey, J.W. (1959) The Measurement of Power Spectra from the
Point of View of Communications Engineering. Dover, New York.
Brainerd, T.G., Bromley, B.C., Warren, M.S. and Zurek, W.H. (1996) Velocity Dispersion
and the Redshift-Space Power Spectrum, Ap. J., 464, L103–L106.
Brainerd, T.G. and Villumsen, J.V. (1993) The Redshift Space Power Spectrum of Galaxies in a Cold Dark Matter Universe, Ap. J., 415, L67–L70.
Brainerd, T.G. and Villumsen, J.V. (1994) The Power Spectra of Dark Halos in a Cold
Dark Matter Universe, Ap. J., 425, 403–417.
Bromley, B.C. (1994) Sampling Functions for Measuring the Cosmic Mass Density, Ap.
J., 423, L81–L84.
Bromley, B.C., Warren, M.S. and Zurek, W.H. (1997) Estimating Ω from Galaxy Redshifts: Linear Flow Distortions and Nonlinear Clustering, Ap. J., 475, 414–420.
Childers, D.G. (1978) Modern Spectrum Analysis. IEEE Press, New York.
Cole, S., Fisher, K.B. and Weinberg, D.H. (1994) Fourier Analysis of Redshift-Space
Distortions and the Determination of Ω, MNRAS, 267, 785–799.
Cole, S., Fisher, K.B. and Weinberg, D.H. (1995) Constraints on Ω from the IRAS Redshift Surveys, MNRAS, 275, 515–526.
Colless, M. and Dunn, A.M. (1996) Structure and Dynamics of the Coma Cluster, Ap.
J., 458, 435–454.
Collins, C.A., Heydon-Dumbleton, N.H and MacGillivray, H.T. (1988) The Edinburgh/Durham Southern Galaxy Catalogue – I. First Results on the Galaxy Angular
Correlation Function, MNRAS, 236, 7P–12P.
Collins, C.A., Nichol, R.C. and Lumsden, S.L. (1992) The Edinburgh/Durham Southern
Galaxy Catalogue – III. w(θ) from the Full Survey, MNRAS, 254, 295–300.
Croft, R.A.C. and Efstathiou, G. (1994) Peculiar Velocities of Galaxy Clusters: A Comparison of Mixed Dark Matter and Low-Density Cold Dark Matter, MNRAS, 268,
L23–L26.
Davis, M., Miller, A. and White, S.D.M. (1997) A Galaxy-Weighted Measure of the
Relative Peculiar Velocity Dispersion, Ap. J., in press (astro-ph/9705224).
Davis, M. and Peebles, P.J.E. (1983) A Survey of Galaxy Redshifts. V. The Two-Point
Position and Velocity Correlations, Ap. J., 267, 465–482.
Dekel, A. (1994) Dynamics of Cosmic Flows, Ann. Rev. Astr. Ap., 32, 371–418.
de Laix, A.A. and Starkman, G. (1997) Sensitivity of Redshift Distortion Measurements
to Cosmological Parameters, preprint (astro-ph/9707008).
de Lapparent, V., Geller, M.J. and Huchra, J.P. (1986) A Slice of the Universe, Ap. J.,
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
87
302, L1–L5.
Dell’Antonio, I.P., Geller, M.J. and Bothun, G.D. (1996) Peculiar Velocities for Galaxies
in the Great Wall. II. Analysis, A. J., 112, 1780–1793.
Efstathiou, G., Bond, J.R. and White, S.D.M. (1992) COBE Background Radiation
Anisotropies and Large-Scale Structure in the Universe, MNRAS, 258, 1P–6P.
Efstathiou, G., Ellis, R.S. and Peterson, B.A. (1988) Analysis of a Complete Galaxy
Redshift Survey – II. The Field-Galaxy Luminosity Function, MNRAS, 232, 431–
461.
Feldman, H.A., Kaiser, N. and Peacock, J.A. (1994) Power Spectrum Analysis of ThreeDimensional Redshift Surveys, Ap. J., 426, 23–37.
Fisher, K.B. (1993) A Spherical Harmonic Approach to Redshift Distortion: Implications
for Ω0 and the Power Spectrum, Cosmic Velocity Fields, Proc. 9th IAP Astrophysics
Meeting, ed. Bouchet, F.R. and Lachièze-Rey, M. Editions Frontières, pp. 177–185.
Fisher, K.B., Davis, M., Strauss, M.A., Yahil, A. and Huchra, J.P. (1993) The Power
Spectrum of IRAS Galaxies, Ap. J., 402, 42–57.
Fisher, K.B., Davis, M., Strauss, M.A., Yahil, A. and Huchra, J.P. (1994a) Clustering in
the 1.2-Jy IRAS Galaxy Redshift Survey – I. The Redshift and Real Space Correlation
Functions, MNRAS, 266, 50–64.
Fisher, K.B., Davis, M., Strauss, M.A., Yahil, A. and Huchra, J.P. (1994b) Clustering
in the 1.2-Jy IRAS Galaxy Redshift Survey – II. Redshift Distortions and ξ(rp , π),
MNRAS, 267, 927–948.
Fisher, K.B., Huchra, J.P., Strauss, M.A., Davis, M., Yahil, A. and Schlegel, D. (1995a)
The IRAS 1.2 Jy Survey: Redshift Data, Ap. J. Supplement, 100, 69–103.
Fisher, K.B., Lahav, O., Hoffman, Y., Lynden-Bell, D. and Zaroubi, S. (1995b) Wiener
Reconstruction of Density, Velocity and Potential Fields from All-Sky Galaxy Redshift Surveys, MNRAS, 272, 885–908.
Fisher, K.B. and Nusser, A. (1996) The Nonlinear Redshift Space Power Spectrum:
Omega from Redshift Surveys, MNRAS, 279, L1–L5.
Fisher, K.B., Scharf, C.A. and Lahav, O. (1994) A Spherical Harmonic Approach to
Redshift Distortion and a Measurement of Ω0 from the 1.2 Jy IRAS Redshift Survey,
MNRAS, 266, 219–226.
Fry, J.N. and Gaztañaga, E. (1993) Biasing and Hierarchical Statistics in Large-Scale
Structure, Ap. J., 413, 447–452.
Fry, J.N. and Gaztañaga, E. (1994) Redshift Distortions of Galaxy Correlation Functions,
Ap. J., 425, 1–13.
Giovanelli, R. and Haynes, M.P. (1993) Redshift Surveys of Galaxies, Ann. Rev. Astr.
Ap., 29, 499–541.
Górski, K.M. (1997) Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy in the COBE DMR
4-Yr Sky Maps, Microwave Background Anisotropies, Proc. XXXIst Rencontres de
Moriond, to appear (astro-ph/9701191).
Gramann, M., Cen, R. and Bahcall, N.A. (1993) Clustering of Galaxies in Redshift Space:
Velocity Distortion of the Power Spectrum and Correlation Function, Ap. J., 419,
440–450.
Gramann, M., Cen, R. and Gott, J.R. III. (1994) Recovering the Real Density Field of
Galaxies from Redshift Space, Ap. J., 425, 382–391.
Guzzo, L., Strauss, M.A., Fisher, K.B., Giovanelli, R. and Haynes, M.P. (1997) RedshiftSpace Distortions and the Real-Space Clustering of Different Galaxy Types, Ap. J.,
489, in press (astro-ph/9706150).
Hamilton, A.J.S. (1992) Measuring Omega and the Real Correlation Function from the
Redshift Correlation Function, Ap. J., 385, L5–L8.
Hamilton, A.J.S. (1993a) Omega from the Anisotropy of the Redshift Correlation Function in the IRAS 2 Jansky Survey, Ap. J., 406, L47–L50.
Hamilton, A.J.S. (1993b) Towards Better Ways to Measure the Galaxy Correlation Function, Ap. J., 417, 19–35.
Hamilton, A.J.S. (1995) Redshift Distortions and Omega in IRAS Surveys, Clustering in
88
A. J. S. HAMILTON
the Universe, Proc. XVth Rencontres de Moriond, ed. Maurogordato, S., Balkowski,
C., Tao, C. and Trân Thanh Vân, J. Editions Frontières, pp. 143–155.
Hamilton, A.J.S. (1997) Towards Optimal Measurement of Power Spectra – II. A Basis
of Positive, Compact, Statistically Orthogonal Kernels, MNRAS, 289, 295–304.
Hamilton, A.J.S. and Culhane, M. (1996) Spherical Redshift Distortions, MNRAS, 278,
73–86.
Hamilton, A.J.S., Kumar, P., Lu, E. and Matthews, A. (1991) Reconstructing the Primordial Spectrum of Fluctuations of the Universe from the Observed Nonlinear Clustering
of Galaxies, Ap. J., 374, L1–L4; Erratum in Ap. J., 442, L73.
Hatton, S.J. and Cole, S. (1997) Modelling the Redshift-Space Distortion of Galaxy
Clustering, MNRAS, submitted (astro-ph/9707186).
Heavens, A.F. and Taylor, A.N. (1995) A Spherical Harmonic Analysis of Redshift Space,
MNRAS, 275, 483–497.
Hivon, E., Bouchet, F.R., Colombi, S. and Juszkiewicz, R. (1995) Redshift Distortions
of Clustering: A Lagrangian Approach, Astron. & Astrophys., 298, 643–660.
Hubble, E. (1929) A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among ExtraGalactic Nebulae, Proc. NAS, 15, 168–173.
Huchra, J., Davis, M., Latham, D. and Tonry, J. (1983) A Survey of Galaxy Redshifts.
IV. The Data, Ap. J. Supplement, 52, 89–119.
Hui, L. and Bertschinger, E. (1996) Local Approximations to the Gravitational Collapse
of Cold Matter, Ap. J., 471, 1–12.
Kaiser, N. (1984) On the Spatial Correlations of Abell Clusters, Ap. J., 284, L9–L12.
Kaiser, N. (1987) Clustering in Real Space and in Redshift Space, MNRAS, 227, 1–21.
Kaiser, N. and Lahav, O. (1988) Theoretical Implications of Cosmological Dipoles, LargeScale Motions in the Universe, ed. Rubin, V.C. and Coyne, G.V. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, pp. 339–384.
Kogut, A., et al. (1993) Dipole Anisotropy in the COBE Differential Microwave Radiometers First-Year Sky Maps, Ap. J., 419, 1–6.
Kogut, A., Banday, A.J., Bennett, C.L., Górski, K.M., Hinshaw, G., Smoot, G.F. and
Wright, E.L. (1996) Tests for Non-Gaussian Statistics in the DMR Four-Year Sky
Maps, Ap. J., 464, L29–L33.
Koranyi, D.M. and Strauss, M.A. (1997) Testing the Hubble Law with the IRAS 1.2 Jy
Redshift Survey, Ap. J., 477, 36–46.
Lahav, O., Lilje, P.B., Primack, J.R. and Rees, M.J. (1991) Dynamical Effects of the
Cosmological Constant, MNRAS, 251, 128–136.
Landau, L.D. and Lifshitz, E.M. (1958) Quantum Mechanics. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Lawrence A., Rowan-Robinson M., Crawford J., Parry I., Xia X.-Y., Ellis R.S., Frenk
C.S., Saunders W., Efstathiou G. and Kaiser N. (1997) in preparation (QDOT redshift
survey).
Le Fèvre, O., Hudon, D., Lilly, S.J., Crampton, D., Hammer, F. and Tresse, L. (1996)
The Canada-France Redshift Survey. VIII. Evolution of the Clustering of Galaxies
from z ∼ 1, Ap. J., 461, 534–545.
Lightman, A.P. and Schechter, P.L. (1990) The Ω Dependence of Peculiar Velocities
Induced by Spherical Density Perturbations, Ap. J. Supplement, 74, 831–832.
Lilje, P.B. and Efstathiou, G. (1989) Gravitationally Induced Velocity Fields in the Universe – I. Correlation Functions, MNRAS, 236, 851–864.
Lin, H. (1995) Redshift-Space Distortions in the Las Campanas Redshift Survey, The Las Campanas Redshift Survey, PhD thesis, Ch. IV, available at
http://manaslu.astro.utoronto.ca/∼lin/Dissertations/Dissertations.html.
Lineweaver, C.H., Tenorio, L., Smoot, G.F., Keegstra, P., Banday, A.J. and Lubin, P.
(1996) The Dipole Observed in the COBE DMR 4 Year Data, Ap. J., 470, 38–42.
Loredo, T.J. (1990) From Laplace to Supernova SN1987A: Bayesian Inference in Astrophysics, Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods, Proc. 9th MaxEnt Workshop,
Dartmouth, ed. Fougère, P.F. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 81–142.
Loveday, J., Efstathiou, G., Maddox, S.J. and Peterson, B.A. (1996a) The Stromlo-APM
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
89
Redshift Survey. III. Redshift Space Distortions, Omega and Bias, Ap. J., 468, 1–16.
Loveday, J., Efstathiou, G., Peterson, B.A. and Maddox, S.J. (1992) Large-Scale Structure in the Universe: Results from the Stromlo-APM Redshift Survey, Ap. J., 400,
L43–L46.
Loveday, J., Maddox, S.J., Efstathiou, G. and Peterson, B.A. (1995) The Stromlo-APM
Redshift Survey. II. Variation of Galaxy Clustering with Morphology and Luminosity,
Ap. J., 442, 457–468.
Loveday, J., Peterson, B.A., Maddox, S.J. and Efstathiou, G. (1996b) The Stromlo-APM
Redshift Survey. IV. The Redshift Catalog, Ap. J. Supplement, 107, 201–214.
Maddox, S.J, Efstathiou, G. and Sutherland, W.J. (1990b) The APM Galaxy Survey –
II. Photometric Corrections, MNRAS, 246, 433–457.
Maddox, S.J, Efstathiou, G. and Sutherland, W.J. (1996) The APM Galaxy Survey
– III. An Analysis of Systematic Errors in the Angular Correlation Function and
Cosmological Implications, MNRAS, 283, 1227–1263.
Maddox, S.J, Sutherland, W., Efstathiou, G. and Loveday, J. (1990a) The APM Galaxy
Survey – I. APM Measurements and Star-Galaxy Separation, MNRAS, 243, 692–712.
Mann, R.G., Peacock, J.A. and Heavens, A.F. (1997) Eulerian Bias and the Galaxy
Density Field, MNRAS, in press (astro-ph/9702228).
Marzke, R.O., Geller, M.J., da Costa, L.N. and Huchra, J.P. (1995) Pairwise Velocities
of Galaxies in the CfA and SSRS2 Redshift Surveys, A. J., 110, 477–501.
Matsubara, T. and Suto, Y. (1996) Cosmological Redshift-Space Distortion of Correlation
Functions as a Probe of the Density Parameter and the Cosmological Constant, Ap.
J., 470, L1–L5.
McGill, C. (1990) The Redshift Projection – I. Caustics and Correlation Functions, MNRAS, 242, 428–438.
Nakamura, T.T., Matsubara, T. and Suto, Y. (1997) Cosmological Redshift Distortion:
Deceleration, Bias and Density Parameters from Future Redshift Surveys of Galaxies,
Ap. J., submitted (astro-ph/9706034).
Nusser, A. and Davis, M. (1994) On the Prediction of Velocity Fields from Redshift Space
Galaxy Samples, Ap. J., 421, L1–L4.
Oliver, S.J., Rowan-Robinson, M., Broadhurst, T.J., McMahon, R.G., Saunders, W.,
Taylor, A., Lawrence, A., Lonsdale, C.J., Hacking, P. and Conrow, T. (1996) LargeScale Structure in a New Deep IRAS Galaxy Redshift Survey, MNRAS, 280, 673–688.
Ostriker, J.P. and Cowie, L.L. (1981) Galaxy Formation in an Intergalactic Medium
Dominated by Explosions, Ap. J., 243, L127–L131.
Padmanabhan, T. (1993) Structure Formation in the Universe. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Peacock, J.A. (1997) The Evolution of Galaxy Clustering, MNRAS, 284, 885–898.
Peacock, J.A. and Dodds, S.J. (1994) Reconstructing the Linear Power Spectrum of
Cosmological Mass Fluctuations, MNRAS, 267, 1020–1034.
Peacock, J.A. and Dodds, S.J. (1996) Nonlinear Evolution of Cosmological Power Spectra,
MNRAS, 280, L19–L26.
Peacock, J.A. and Nicholson, D. (1991) The Large-Scale Clustering of Radio Galaxies,
MNRAS, 253, 307–319.
Peacock, J.A. and West, M.J. (1992) The Power Spectrum of Abell Clusters Correlations,
MNRAS, 259, 494–504.
Peebles P.J.E. (1973) Statistical Analysis of Catalogs of Extragalactic Objects. I. Theory,
Ap. J., 185, 413–440.
Peebles P.J.E. (1976) A Cosmic Virial Theorem, Ap. Space Sci., 45, 3–19.
Peebles, P.J.E. (1980) The Large Scale Structure of the Universe. Princeton University
Press, Princeton.
Praton, E.A., Melott, A.L. and McKee, M.Q. (1997) The Bull’s-Eye Effect: Are Galaxy
Walls Observationally Enhanced?, Ap. J., 479, L15–L18.
Ramella, M., Geller, M.J. and Huchra, J.P. (1992) The Distribution of Galaxies within
the “Great Wall”, Ap. J., 384, 396–403.
90
A. J. S. HAMILTON
Ramella, M., Geller, M.J. and Huchra, J.P. (1993) Groups of Galaxies in the Center for
Astrophysics Redshift Survey, Ap. J., 344, 57–74.
Ratcliffe, A., Shanks, T., Fong, R. and Parker, Q.A. (1997) The Durham/UKST Galaxy
Redshift Survey IV. Redshift Space Distortions in the 2-Point Correlation Function,
MNRAS, submitted (astro-ph/9702228).
Regős, E. and Geller, M.J. (1989) Infall Patterns around Rich Clusters of Galaxies, A.
J., 98, 755–765.
Rowan-Robinson M., Saunders W., Lawrence A., Leech K.J. (1991) The QMW IRAS
Galaxy Catalogue: A Highly Complete and Reliable IRAS 60-µm Galaxy Catalogue,
MNRAS, 253, 485–495.
Sargent, W.L.W. and Turner, E.L. (1977) A Statistical Method for Determining the Cosmological Density Parameter from the Redshifts of a Complete Sample of Galaxies,
Ap. J., 212, L3–L7.
Saunders, W., Rowan-Robinson, M. and Lawrence, A. (1992) The Spatial Clustering of
IRAS Galaxies on Small and Intermediate Scales, MNRAS, 258, 134–146.
Saunders, W., Rowan-Robinson, M., Lawrence, A., Efstathiou, G., Kaiser, N., Ellis, R.S.
and Frenk, C.S. (1990) The 60-µm and Far-Infrared Luminosity Functions of IRAS
galaxies, MNRAS, 242, 318–337.
Scoccimarro, R. and Frieman, J.A. (1996) Loop Corrections in Nonlinear Cosmological
Perturbation Theory. II. Two-Point Statistics and Self-Similarity. Ap. J., 473, 620–
644.
Shectman, S.A., Landy, S.D., Oemler, A., Tucker, D.L., Lin, H., Kirshner, R.P. and
Schechter, P.L. (1996) The Las Campanas Redshift Survey, Ap. J., 470, 172–188.
Stirling, A.J. and Peacock, J.A. (1996) Power Correlations in Cosmology: Limits on
Primordial Non-Gaussian Density Fields, MNRAS, 283, L99–L104.
Strauss, M.A. (1997) Recent Advances in Redshift Surveys of the Local Universe, Structure Formation in the Universe, ed. Dekel, A. and Ostriker, J.P., to appear (astroph/9610033).
Strauss, M.A., Huchra, J.P., Davis, M., Yahil, A., Fisher, K.B., and Tonry, J. (1992a)
A Redshift Survey of IRAS Galaxies. VII. The Infrared and Redshift Data for the
1.936 Jansky Sample, Ap. J. Supplement, 83, 29–63.
Strauss, M.A. and Willick, J.A. (1995) The Density and Peculiar Velocity Fields of Nearby
Galaxies, Physics Reports, 261, 271–431.
Strauss, M.A., Yahil, A. and Davis, M. (1991) On the Derivation of Selection Functions
from Redshift Survey Data, Pub. Astr. Soc. Pacific, 103, 1012–1019.
Strauss, M.A., Yahil, A., Davis, M., Huchra, J.P. and Fisher, K.B. (1992b) A Redshift
Survey of IRAS Galaxies. V. The Acceleration on the Local Group, Ap. J., 397,
395–419.
Suto, Y. and Suginohara, T. (1991) Redshift-Space Correlation Functions in the Cold
Dark Matter Scenario, Ap. J., 370, L15–L18.
Tadros, H. and Efstathiou, G. (1995) The Power Spectrum of IRAS galaxies, MNRAS,
276, L45–L50.
Tadros, H. and Efstathiou, G. (1996) Power Spectrum Analysis of the Stromlo-APM
Redshift Survey, MNRAS, 282, 1381–1396.
Taylor, A.N. and Hamilton, A.J.S. (1996) Nonlinear Cosmological Power Spectra in Real
and Redshift-Space, MNRAS, 282, 767–778.
Tegmark, M. and Bromley, B.C. (1995) Real-Space Cosmic Fields from Redshift-Space
Distributions: A Green’s Function Approach, Ap. J., 453, 533–540.
Tegmark, M., Hamilton, A.J.S, Strauss, M.A., Vogeley, M.S. and Szalay, A.S. (1997) Measuring the Galaxy Power Spectrum with Future Redshift Surveys, Ap. J., submitted
(astro-ph/9708020).
Tegmark, M., Taylor, A.N. and Heavens, A.F. (1997) Karhunen-Loève Eigenvalue Problems in Cosmology: How Should We Tackle Large Data Sets?, Ap. J., 480, 22–35.
Turner, E.L. (1979) Statistics of the Hubble Diagram. II. The Form of the Luminosity
Function and Density Variations with Application to Quasars, Ap. J., 231, 645–652.
LINEAR REDSHIFT DISTORTIONS
91
Vogeley, M.S., Park, C., Geller, M. and Huchra, J.P. (1992) Large-Scale Clustering of
Galaxies in the CfA Redshift Survey, Ap. J., 391, L5–L8.
Vogeley, M.S. and Szalay, A.S. (1996) Eigenmode Analysis of Galaxy Redshift Surveys.
I. Theory and Methods, Ap. J., 465, 34–53.
Webster, M., Lahav, O. and Fisher, K.B. (1997) Wiener Reconstruction of the IRAS 1.2Jy Galaxy Redshift Survey: Cosmographical Implications, MNRAS, 287, 425–444.
Wegner, G., Haynes, M.P. and Giovanelli, R. (1993) A Survey of the Pisces-Perseus
Supercluster. V. The Declination Strip +33.◦ 5 to +39.◦ 5 and the Main Supercluster
Ridge, A. J., 105, 1251–1270.
Yahil, A., Strauss, M.A., Davis, M. and Huchra, J.P. (1991) A Redshift Survey of IRAS
Galaxies. II. Methods for Determining Self-Consistent Velocity and Density Fields,
Ap. J., 372, 380–393.
Yahil, A., Tammann, G.A. and Sandage, A. (1977) The Local Group: The Solar Motion
Relative to its Centroid, Ap. J., 217, 903–915.
Yu J.T. and Peebles P.J.E. (1969) Superclusters of Galaxies?, Ap. J., 158, 103–113.
Zaroubi, S. and Hoffman, Y. (1996) Clustering in Redshift Space: Linear Theory, Ap. J.,
462, 25–31.
Zurek, W.H., Quinn, P.J., Salmon, J.K. and Warren, M.S. (1994) Large-Scale Structure
after COBE: Peculiar Velocities and Correlations of Cold Dark Matter Halos, Ap. J.,
431, 559–568.